Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

[Wasted]

That's only true if the majority of voters are against the limit increase. I think the point of his web site and fb page is to demonstrate that it's the other way around.

That may be the point of it but it's definitely not accomplishing that. And as for OPs question about 1000 likes. No, that will not change my mind. You want to get people to take you seriously? Get a few mpp's to public endorse your idea. Then you've got something, but like I stated before, don't underestimate the power of the people who will try and stop you.

[EngineerJoe]

The thickness of asphalt, etc are designed for the pounding handed out by HEAVY TRUCKS - not cars. The trucks are the predominant factor when it comes to wear on pavement and structures.

I'm not sure if the frequency of vehicles becomes a factor in the design as well.

They were designed for at least 70 mph (plus the engineer's safety margin on top of that) in an era where the average car had 4 wheel drum brakes, no ABS, no stability control, no airbags, and often no seat belts - and when trucks used leaf-sprung suspensions (extremely stiff) rather than the air-ride setups often used nowadays.

That is very true, and while the vehicles have changed A LOT in the last 30 years, so have the highways.

No politician is willing to risk their career by trying to fight the soccer moms, conservatives, environmentalists, engineers, and the people holding pictures of late relative lost in speed related accidents. It's not about logic and about what were already doing.....it's about an mpp's career. That's all

You just lumped me into the same group as soccer moms, conservatives and environmentalists... what did I ever do to you?

[chrison]

It doesn't matter if the cars of the 70s could do it. And of course today's cars are more capable to sustain speeds above 100kph. The fact remains that no politician will endorse this idea. You can fight all you want but no one is going to commit political suicide over the speed limit of a highway. Don't underestimate your advisories here (soccer moms, the hard core conservatives etc) Let me put it to you this way....people have been trying to sell booze in corner stores for years. If you threw up a site to try to allow your neighborhood 7/11 to sell beers, you'd get at least 10x the support and it still wouldn't Matter. Why? Because politicians now that if they get behind it they'll get murdered in the next election. No politician is willing to risk their career by trying to fight the soccer moms, conservatives, environmentalists, engineers, and the people holding pictures of late relative lost in speed related accidents. It's not about logic and about what were already doing.....it's about an mpp's career. That's all

Very fair point... but I'll try to use it to the contrary.... If the majority is on our side.

I work with an internationally acknowledged expert on road surfaces who would disagree with you about the comparison between the autobahn and Canadian highways. Just a small point, but a point nonetheless. Just a question too....would you accept a raise to 120 with a zero tolerance level of enforcement a la USA?

No, as nobody would ever accept it. Don't get me wrong - I think our cops deserve a medal for making up for this bad law - they are our silent heroes for 'generally' not ticketing below 120km/h. We should bow in respect (seriously, no sarcasm), I spoke to a few of them and found great respect when I heard what they had to say. BUT, it makes the law less predictable, as some cops will ignore you at 125 and some will nail you for 117... That's what I'd like to do away with for the sake of clear rules of the game for all - drivers and cops. The proposal would be 120 km + smaller, say up to 10-15kmh tolerance = safe driving at 130-135. In rural areas, on more deserted 'peaceful" highways, I'd be very progressive of our politicians to finally give Ontarians some credit and post 130 limit + small, say 5-10kmh tolerance (several of you have stated that lane etiquette generally gets a lot better outside of the cities... I could find your quotes and I totally concur).

Btw, there is no zero tolerance in the US (I've traveled extensively and been thru almost all states). Absolute minimum tolerance (in MOST places I have been to) is 5MPH (8kmh) and ranging up to 12MPH (19kmh) in some areas.

That's only true if the majority of voters are against the limit increase. I think the point of his web site and fb page is to demonstrate that it's the other way around.

Precisely, I DON'T KNOW what the survey will yield... but based on what we already have (not talking about facebook but poll results) AND on something I've researched before, there may be a chance for a VAST overwhelming majority of general population supporting it. It that were the case.....

Read more and support the cause at www.stop100.ca and LIKE us on facebookwww.facebook.com/stop100

[chrison]

That may be the point of it but it's definitely not accomplishing that. And as for OPs question about 1000 likes. No, that will not change my mind. You want to get people to take you seriously? Get a few mpp's to public endorse your idea. Then you've got something, but like I stated before, don't underestimate the power of the people who will try and stop you.

Of course - you're right on.... We have to start somewhere, we know there'll be tough opposition. That's why we need the numbers and that's why we need the polls. Don't worry - all MPPs will be contacted... This is JUST the beginning... It may last a few years (not this thread, don't worry LOL)

[Wasted]

I'm not sure if the frequency of vehicles becomes a factor in the design as well.


That is very true, and while the vehicles have changed A LOT in the last 30 years, so have the highways.


You just lumped me into the same group as soccer moms, conservatives and environmentalists... what did I ever do to you?

Hahaha sorry man. I suppose I should have worded that more carefully. The hard core conservatives will hire engineers to point out the flaws in the theory. And then show up to rallies with numbers and stats as to why they don't want the change to go through. I wouldn't envision a group of engineers out there with signs or anything like that lol

[EngineerJoe]

^ It's quite alright. As long as you don't think of me as a hybrid mini-van driving conservative, we're cool.

If you've previously stated that you don't actually think it'd be less safe at 130 than 110 (sorry can't quite remember the number but I hope I'm close), yet you still chose 100, then I kind of don't get it (although I appreciate your negative vote, no sarcasm).

Safety was just one of my deciding factors.

And trust me, stats are frequently manipulated, so me showing you numbers makes almost no sense, as you could easily pull some other ones to the contrary

Granted, stats are frequently misunderstood or misrepresented or both, but don't discount them simply on that premise. Look at who's presenting the data and see if there is a controlling interest in the information they're providing. Look at how the information was gathered, and where it was gathered. Is it statistically valid?

And what's up with this "road design" theory? This is not Aspen or Switzerland - you won't fly off of a curve into a deep valley. FIRST OF ALL - WITH ALL DUE RESPECT - YOU NEED TO GET SOME FACTS RIGHT...

I recognize why the speed was dropped, but the highways have been redesigned to some extent in the last 30 years... and yes, "road design" still comes into play. In a country as regulated as Canada, are you really surprised?

Going back to the "road design" - if you do some research, you'll quickly find out that our very own roads yield almost nothing in quality to German autobahns where no limits are enforced!

It's not just road quality. Ambient conditions (not just weather) also play a factor in the "design".

[chrison]

Granted, stats are frequently misunderstood or misrepresented or both, but don't discount them simply on that premise. Look at who's presenting the data and see if there is a controlling interest in the information they're providing. Look at how the information was gathered, and where it was gathered. Is it statistically valid?

NOW we're talking! Precisely the point! From my findings, what I've learned is that DOTs (dept of transp) almost always will present 'no significant increase' stats and will support their decision to raise the limits with 'neutral/positive' REAL DATA / NUMBERS. I have yet to hear of a DOT which found significantly more casualties and REVERTED its decision to raise limits. You can research those specific DOTs from our site at www.stop100.ca. (ok, there was one but it was not a 'reversal' but a change after many years: Dubai had a 160km/h limit and reduced it to 140 km /h strictly enforced not long ago). Still... they allow 140km/h!

Now, their opposition - usually IIHS-like bodies (Insurance Inst. For Highway Safety) - a body funded by insurance companies. They are extremely anti-speed. Now... sure they claim safety and all (and have been promoting safety for years in a form of vehicle safety improvements), but their anti-speed campaigns and countless stats seems to be so contrary to the DOT's findings.

Let's analyze this a bit using a US example (as they do this a lot more than Canada, ie, change things)....

WHO is telling the "truth".... well, who has something to gain/lose:

By raising the limits the GOV'T/DOTs :
LOSE: REDUCE THEIR TICKET REVENUES by getting a lot less tickets to city coffers. Risk "widespread casualties/war-like scenes, bloodshed on the roads".
GAIN: HMMM... NOTHING? Just a "bunch of" happier/more free drivers who can finally go faster. Maybe more $ from more tax money from gas?

By lowering (or not raising) the limits / promoting "speed-kills" theories, the Insurance Companies and IIHS:
LOSE: NOTHING? Seriously, can't think of anything. They don't even get blamed for low limits - the gov't does...
GAIN: Lower speed limits = more frustrated and tempted drivers = MORE TICKETS = INSURANCE RATE HIKES = MORE REVENUE (from the same driver who previously paid less, but just got more tickets because speed limit was lowered, not because he/she started driving "recklessly" above the newly lowered speed limits), PUBLIC IMAGE of great servants and safety advocates and protecting innocent lives, stories or countless numbers saved due to lower limits, more perceived public TRUST from brainwashed people who believe that their lives are being saved by IIHS opposing limits increases --> using that trust to promote more "safety tools" - red light cameras, speed cameras in the cities --> and loop back to the beginning... --> more cameras --> more tickets and so on.....

IIHS promotes cameras like crazy, they continue to publish stats how much safer the cities who adopted them are etc... They fail to notice the cities who have banned cameras (read an article on it once, can't remember which ones, but there were some, just like Ontario who has refused to accept them few years back).

Now, can you think why something like IIHS does not exist in Europe? EU Insurance companies (or at least in some countries I know for SURE 100%) do not raise your
premiums based on tickets - but strictly on CLAIMS!!!! Can you imagine? World like this actually exists! So, essentially insurance companies care less about your tickets, as they gain nothing from them!

Just something to consider when reading "safety stats". Again.. who gains and who loses... Statistically those DOTs do not observe almost any increased casualties with higher limits... (Montana with no speed limit saw no SINGLE extra casualty - when the limit of 75 mph was imposed, the casualty rate has actually slightly gone up, I've seen the actual real numbers, totally contrary to IIHS theories).

[chrison]

You'll love this too... from Wikipedia

Since the IIHS first-and-foremost represents the interests of the 80 insurance companies from which it receives its funding, critics such as the American Motorcyclist Association have suggested that the IIHS sometimes seeks to influence legislation aimed at making insurance companies more profitable, rather than benefitting the public interest.^[8]

The IIHS released a report in 2007 suggesting that certain types of motorcycles be either banned or restricted from use on public roads, specifically sport bikes, after lumping together several different types of non-sport motorbikes into makeshift categories, allegedly to skew the crash data in favor of its argument. The 2007 report mirrored a similar IIHS study released in 1987, which was claimed by the IIHS to be based on findings in the famous Hurt Report motorcycle crash study, and which was used to influence U.S. Sen. John Danforth into proposing a law that would have mandated horsepower limits for bikes sold in America. Dr. Hugh H. "Harry" Hurt, Jr., the noted author of the Hurt Report, called the 1987 IIHS study "sloppy" and "fatally flawed".^[10]

Citing its similarities to the 1987 report, AMA called the 2007 IIHS report "... a bike classification shell game". An AMA news release stated: "We beat the IIHS sportbike ban [in 1987], and we even got Sen. Danforth on our side, saying that he recognized that the AMA had the constituent interest in motorcycle safety and that his IIHS-backed bill was a 'dead-end street.'".^[10]

Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations, said of the 2007 report: "This kind of flawed report, passed off as scientific research, has the potential to do great damage. At the very least, it can create false perceptions we’ll have to fight for years. And at worst, it could lead to restrictive laws that have no basis in reality.”^[10]

In the IIHS' annual reports on vehicle safety they frequently miscorrelate vehicle safety with the number of driver deaths each year. Their calculation of "Death Rate" selectively excludes the number of non-fatal crashes that occur; without this data, the actual likelihood of dying in a crash is simply unknown.^{[citation needed]} Nonetheless, the IIHS has used this method for 22 years to determine the safest vehicles.^[11]

Read more and support the cause at www.stop100.ca and LIKE us on facebookwww.facebook.com/stop100

[Cat13]

Come on....you can't be serious..? Your just trying to be funny now aren't ya?..lol.
Transport trucks and cars pound their way up and down the 401 at speeds over the limit all the time in all kinds of weather, believe me it's designed to handle the impact...lol. Which were just sayin is to legalize the speed limit of 120.
I'll give you the fact the Dvp just might not be able to handle the speeds ....but on a bike it would be awesome.

Yep quite serious. You have a very narrow perspective. You need to open your eyes and see that there isnt always one reason for things to be the way they are. Theres multiple factors involved in everything.

Daytime 130 km/h on 400 series except through Toronto and maybe Hamilton - 110 km/h there. 110 km/h for the trucks, 110 km/h for anything with 6 or more wheels (i.e. towing), 110 km/h when precipitation warrants using windshield wipers, 110 km/h between sunset and sunrise. Any vehicle limited below the maximum is not allowed in the left lane. Two-lane roads outside built-up areas should be 100 km/h, at least during the daytime. Most of Europe is more or less like this ...

You know that if we raise the speeds for cars and not trucks they will find a way to make us all pay for it. And honestly what little I traveled with Gilligan and the harley demo team last year I can understand the truckers frustraitions.

And what's up with this "road design" theory? This is not Aspen or Switzerland - you won't fly off of a curve into a deep valley. FIRST OF ALL - WITH ALL DUE RESPECT - YOU NEED TO GET SOME FACTS RIGHT - 100KM/H WAS NOT SET ON OUR ROADS OUT OF SAFETY - BUT THE OIL EMBARGO! WITH HORRIBLE CARS OF 1976, THE SPEED LIMIT WAS ALREADY 112 KM/H!

Going back to the "road design" - if you do some research, you'll quickly find out that our very own roads yield almost nothing in quality to German autobahns where no limits are enforced! (on more than 50% of them). Our lanes are wide, surface is smooth, most ramps are quite long (not much shorter, if not longer(!) than many on the autobahn, talk to the people that have been there). So we're talking "safe" Autobahn cruising possible at 200-250 km/h while similar road (or better) here is rated at 125? Come on... I have a feeling if you drove 401 east, 400 north or 407 any direction at 160 you wouldn't feel endangered for a split second (when it comes to your car and the road - don't factor in other drivers for the argument's sake). "Road design" + 1970s cars is a different formula than that same "roads design" with the cars of today. Yes, a HUMAN factor is another story, but that has nothing to do with "road design" per se. The design is permanent - human behaviour can be shaped and improved (education + enforcement).

Comparing us to European countries doesnt work. A lot of the cities are difficult to get the big vehicles around like we have the space for here. A lot of cities have a higher bicycle traffic over vehicle traffic. More trains etc etc. Can't compare North America to Europe.

The oil crisis is not the only driving factor in the roads. And I don't forget it. Its why we build houses with 2x6 when they can be built with 2x4. Its so we can fit more insulation. The oil crisis affected a lot more that just vehicles.
But the roads are affected and designed for volume of traffic, the size of the vehicles using it. Its geographic location and soil conditions etc etc.
You really need to do more reading.

Design is not permenant btw. They can change it when they rip it up for repairs. Add more gravol, change the chemical additives in the paving material. Pack the gravel down to a specific density etc etc.

I'm not sure if the frequency of vehicles becomes a factor in the design as well.

You know it does. Hence why they do the traffic studies every now and then. To calculate the traffic on the roads.

It's not just road quality. Ambient conditions (not just weather) also play a factor in the "design".

Yep.... and how they deal with weather. IE salt in the winter.

[Bermuda]

Nice to see this is still alive - at least people are talking.

I'm finding it surprising that the quality and design of the roads and vehicles are creating such a large portion of the arguments being made. Yes, both roads and vehicles are engineered and designed with tolerances, but consider how they are currently being used. Vehicles have been able to travel at speeds of 100km/h, safely, for at least 50 years now. Suggesting that the quality of modern vehicles will be brought into question is a little besides the point.

Also, if it's so commonly understood that commuters regularly use the 400 series and other highways at 10-30km/h over the speed limit, then surely the quality and endurance of our roads has already been taken into consideration. If that kind of use is going to create substantial damage and costs for repair, then enforcement of the current speed limit would be higher than it is.

Also, making claims that other countries do it and therefore we should as well is akin to a child throwing a fit in a toy store because his friends Mom bought her son a toy he can't have. You will NEED figures and statistics to support your claim. And they need to be consistent. No suggested figures, no anecdotes, no flip-flopping like a dying a fish. Personally, I think your inconsistencies in your arguments are hurting you more than your cause.

[Kool]

Also, making claims that other countries do it and therefore we should as well is akin to a child throwing a fit in a toy store because his friends Mom bought her son a toy he can't have. You will NEED figures and statistics to support your claim. And they need to be consistent. No suggested figures, no anecdotes, no flip-flopping like a dying a fish. Personally, I think your inconsistencies in your arguments are hurting you more than your cause.

Ummm??...no it's not. By saying higher hwy speeds are proven to be safe in other developed nations.. is throwing a fit? wtf? The Germans have been doing this for a long time...use Google dude. Sure the OP needs to present actual facts from some legit organization...and I found some spending a minute with google. This exercise is really just legalizing what ia already going on.
I see no facts or fish in your arguments against either.

[Jerico]

120 is fine in rural areas. Windsor/London, Brockville/Cornwall corridors for example. No where near the traffic density of GTA, which you seem to be using to apply the same blanket statement.

Again, proper driving techniques are the key. Personally I would like to see dynamic speed limits. Having a speed sign change it's led's from 100 to 120 on a sunny day with light traffic would be ideal. Driver education needs to be addressed first though.

Dynamic is totally the way to go. I used to drive the Brantford/Burlington corridor everyday, and in the dead of winter in my 4x4 safety cage with good tires, I was fearful of going over 60 km/h. Then on other days on the bike I felt like 160-180 would be a more appropriate speed limit. In southern Ontario, it's all about traffic level and weather.

On the other hand, I have been in Sask many times over the years in all weather, and you could easily do 200 in the right car on those road, but they are limited to 110 and strictly enforced.

[jc100]

Ummm??...no it's not. By saying higher hwy speeds are proven to be safe in other developed nations.. is throwing a fit? wtf? The Germans have been doing this for a long time...use Google dude. Sure the OP needs to present actual facts from some legit organization...and I found some spending a minute with google. This exercise is really just legalizing what ia already going on.
I see no facts or fish in your arguments against either.

No one seems to be arguing that we can't follow other countries aslong as our driver training is also up to their standards.

[Kool]

So your saying our 400 hwy's are inferior to those in Europe? lol.
Our trucks are bigger and heavier....our cars are heavier mostly...we have huge extremes in weather too.
So our roads are not designed to handle speeds we are doing on a daily basis for how many years now? wow where do you come up with this?
We need to simply follow laws/rules of the road which are already in place. We need simple enforcement is all. Ya it will be tough for a year or so....then all will be cool.
We are talking about HWY's not the back streets of European cities. Yes you can compare.
And they have had more of a oil crisis than we have had to deal with too. Go there and see with your eyes and drive the roads and then you will grasp this.
But appreciate you opinion and thoughts.

[Bermuda]

Ummm??...no it's not. By saying higher hwy speeds are proven to be safe in other developed nations.. is throwing a fit? wtf? The Germans have been doing this for a long time...use Google dude. Sure the OP needs to present actual facts from some legit organization...and I found some spending a minute with google. This exercise is really just legalizing what ia already going on.
I see no facts or fish in your arguments against either.

I'm not the one on trial here. If you want to present a case, you need an argument that can be backed with evidence. I'm not claiming that we can't mimic the systems implemented in other countries. What I'm saying is that you can't go telling people to do your research for you, while you sit around making the argument of monkey-see, monkey-do.

If you want to use other countries speed limits and road works as evidence, you need to investigate them. The drivers, the cars, the roads, the environment, the weather, peak driving hours, congestion. All of that is important, and then a whole lot more. You need draw similarities where it will support your argument, and differences where it wouldn't. Saying "country x does it too" isn't evidence to support the argument that we should imitate them, it's simply an observation.

[Nixel]

I'm not the one on trial here. If you want to present a case, you need an argument that can be backed with evidence. I'm not claiming that we can't mimic the systems implemented in other countries. What I'm saying is that you can't go telling people to do your research for you, while you sit around making the argument of monkey-see, monkey-do.

If you want to use other countries speed limits and road works as evidence, you need to investigate them. The drivers, the cars, the roads, the environment, the weather, peak driving hours, congestion. All of that is important, and then a whole lot more. You need draw similarities where it will support your argument, and differences where it wouldn't. Saying "country x does it too" isn't evidence to support the argument that we should imitate them, it's simply an observation.

I'm astounded at the amount of patience and restraint you've managed to use in presenting your argument to Kool.

Chrison and anyone supporting this: You need someone like Bermuda representing you if you want this to become more than a Facebook like crusade. Currently the impression is that you're wearing your bias for wanting this change on your sleeve and are overly combative towards people who disagree.

Every person in opposition is an opportunity to make a stronger case and convert someone new to your cause. At this point you're just wrangling speeders to your cause while alienating people with legitimate concerns for the validity of your cause.

[Cat13]

I'm astounded at the amount of patience and restraint you've managed to use in presenting your argument to Kool.

Chrison and anyone supporting this: You need someone like Bermuda representing you if you want this to become more than a Facebook like crusade. Currently the impression is that you're wearing your bias for wanting this change on your sleeve and are overly combative towards people who disagree.

Every person in opposition is an opportunity to make a stronger case and convert someone new to your cause. At this point you're just wrangling speeders to your cause while alienating people with legitimate concerns for the validity of your cause.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[EngineerJoe]

I'm astounded at the amount of patience and restraint you've managed to use in presenting your argument to Kool.

Chrison and anyone supporting this: You need someone like Bermuda representing you if you want this to become more than a Facebook like crusade. Currently the impression is that you're wearing your bias for wanting this change on your sleeve and are overly combative towards people who disagree.

Every person in opposition is an opportunity to make a stronger case and convert someone new to your cause. At this point you're just wrangling speeders to your cause while alienating people with legitimate concerns for the validity of your cause.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[chrison]

So your saying our 400 hwy's are inferior to those in Europe? lol.
Our trucks are bigger and heavier....our cars are heavier mostly...we have huge extremes in weather too.
So our roads are not designed to handle speeds we are doing on a daily basis for how many years now? wow where do you come up with this?
We need to simply follow laws/rules of the road which are already in place. We need simple enforcement is all. Ya it will be tough for a year or so....then all will be cool.
We are talking about HWY's not the back streets of European cities. Yes you can compare.
And they have had more of a oil crisis than we have had to deal with too. Go there and see with your eyes and drive the roads and then you will grasp this.
But appreciate you opinion and thoughts.

Kool is right on... It's silly to constantly say our roads are designed for 100-110 if they manage 130-140+ with no issues every day. Nobody knows for sure what they're "designed for" (I was UNABLE to find this anywhere), but the fact is almost irrelevant due to a few things...

1. Engineers 50 years ago had no idea what cars we'd have 50 yrs later, better brakes, tires, suspensions, you name it. I personally think it makes extreme difference. Also, a chance of coming out an accident? Incomparably higher. So does this "road design" really matter or affect this case negatively in any way? Also, this is not Colorado, but mostly flat straights...
2. WHY limit the entire ON highway system down (say to 100) because of a few places with shorter ramps or sharper curves? Couldn't the limit be set lower near such place - then bump it up to 120-130 when a "danger" zone has passed? Does this too require "proving" or shall we call it "common sense"?

I'm astounded at the amount of patience and restraint you've managed to use in presenting your argument to Kool.

Chrison and anyone supporting this: You need someone like Bermuda representing you if you want this to become more than a Facebook like crusade. Currently the impression is that you're wearing your bias for wanting this change on your sleeve and are overly combative towards people who disagree.

Every person in opposition is an opportunity to make a stronger case and convert someone new to your cause. At this point you're just wrangling speeders to your cause while alienating people with legitimate concerns for the validity of your cause.

Couldn't agree more! I personally welcome negative, CONSTRUCTIVE feedback and totally agree - it is only through proper criticism how one can improve the case. I am working on an FAQ document based on all that's said in this thread. I simply question things like: "our roads are not designed for it..." (see above) or "our drivers are total morons". No, they're not the greatest drivers in the world by ANY standard, but they're not all reckless idiots either. I feel safe every time I drive. Would our roads be SO SAFE if our drivers were as bad as many describe them? I think we are unnecessarily emotionally charging the argument because of a few morons blocking the left lane.... Couldn't OPP help to root it out?

And remember, everyone is a "speeder" if you choose to call them that (since nobody actually does 100-105 on our roads!). Simply everyone! That includes police cruisers on 407 doing 120 often times... For as long as the law sets unreasonable low speed limit, everyone will continue to be a "speeder". THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CAUSE! WWW.STOP100.CA. So I could use your argument and say that all those "speeders" will become our supporters (ie. 100% of 400-s drivers) if they want to CONITINUE DRIVING AT 110-125 AND NOT BREAK THE LAW. Unless hypocracy sets in and those doing 120-125 suddenly decide to think it is legal, and don't support the cause. Remember this cause does relatively little for those going 140+. They will still be ticketed! It is for those going very "conservatively" around 120-125 to finally do it LEGALLY for a change (some officers did tell me they indeed ticket at 120 km/h).

[OpenGambit]

I find caps lock to be obnoxious. Can you put that in your FAQ.