|
|
|
Speed limits: Is faster safer?
- Thread starter h0ck3y
- Start date
I did mention legislation in my earlier post and, indeed, it's already there:
"132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1)."
"...impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic..." is right there in the law. The wording here is interesting as there is no mention in this clause with respect to legal limit nor a reference to HTA128.
A cop would thus be executing his duty to uphold the HTA if he were to pull over someone that is blocking or impeding the "normal and reasonable" flow of traffic and ask that they step it up. If the offense is egregious enough (e.g. Baggsy's example) the guy gets a ticket for doing so.
I figured I would give you time to discover the HTA section I have laid that charge in the past..lol HOWEVER, it can NOT be laid if the vehicle is traveling at the legal limit. A JP would laugh the officer right out of court but nice try..lol Even the worst paralegal would get that charge tossed in a New York minute if the vehicle is traveling at the LEGAL limit. A vehicle traveling at the legal limit is NOT impeding traffic. Again, you and I have NO right granted under the HTA to travel at a speed which exceeds the posted limit, therefore, someone traveling AT the limit is can not be convicted of "impeding" traffic.
The rule of thumb used to be the vehicle had to be traveling at LEAST 50% of the posted limit to even consider laying the charge.
The rule of thumb used to be the vehicle had to be traveling at LEAST 50% of the posted limit to even consider laying the charge.
Riceburner
Well-known member
Wonder what happened in the long run with Gord Thompson?
But in that case it was a deliberate act co-ordinated by 4 individuals, not just a single vehicle traveling at the posted limit. The article also says they were charged but there is no mention if they were actually convicted. had he done this alone he would have had a great legal defence in that he was told by the JP in his original trial that even 1 km over would be breaking the law.
Riceburner
Well-known member
What about multiple individuals that decide to not break the law at the same time? ....and happen to be beside each other.
statsman
Well-known member
I have seen the expression unofficial speed limit several times.
There is no unofficial speed limit, only the official speed limit that is posted on the signs.
The problem with an unofficial speed limit is that no one knows what it is.
If the posted limit is 100 km hr is the unofficial limit 110 or 120 or 150.
There is no unofficial speed limit, only the official speed limit that is posted on the signs.
The problem with an unofficial speed limit is that no one knows what it is.
If the posted limit is 100 km hr is the unofficial limit 110 or 120 or 150.
http://www.drivers.com/article/149/
Driving the speed limit and staying out of the way of others is just fine. Hell, every tractor trailer in this province, as someone else mentioned, is governed to a maximum of 105KPH..and yet us guys don't cause 80 Kilometers of gridlock like Gord Thomson did...because we're not ***** like he was being and we move over.
And that's my point. It's possible to drive the speed limit for as far and as long as you want, quite legally, so long as you're not intentionally trying to screwup the flow of others who wish to speed as Gordo was doing. There IS a difference. Move over when you can (ie, more than a 1 lane road) and mind your business.
Now, if you're on a 1 lane road, different situation - a person is perfectly entitled to drive the speed limit and not 1K over and need not give 2 craps about those behind him that are convinced they MUST speed for their own satisfaction or entitlement. On most 1 lane roads there's usually plenty of opportunities for people to pass as well if they can't handle driving the speed limit. Trust me, many can't - wish I had dashcam footage of the clown in the black VW Jetta today between Madoc and Havelock who just about lost his mind "stuck" behind me while I was doing only 10 over..as I always do in that stretch since the speed limit is actually 80, and the OPP *will* pull you over doing ~100. He risked a close-call head on collision with a dump truck to get around me only to get stuck in front of the next truck ahead of me anyways, and then coming through Havelock he drove over a curb and down the shoulder of the sidewalk to pass another truck that was (gasp!) doing the speed limit through town.
And I concur, any officer that would dare charge someone for driving too slow would be laughed out of court. Don't get that mixed up with intentionally impeding traffic when options exist to not, however, different thing.
Last edited:
What difference does that make when you seem to claim that going the "legal limit" trumps all? You said "HOWEVER, it can NOT be laid if the vehicle is traveling at the legal limit."
Despite travelling at the posted limit they were charged with obstruction. Gordon Thompson and his friend pled guilty to the obstruction charge and it was accepted by the court meaning he was legally convicted. Did you read the story?
If the legal limit trumps all why did it matter how many individuals are involved or where their cars are relative to one another?
The reason how many vehicles and where they were positioned relative to one another is a MAJOR factor is that it was proven that these individuals had discussed this plan and had "agreed" to a concerted effort to block the highway. If three vehicles had just randomly been driving along and had been standing abreast of each other, they would be the mere fact that to get into that position, (at least one would have been traveling slower or faster then the others, otherwise they would have never ended up beside each other), eventually clear the road. These vehicles were intentionally placed so as to block the roadway. It is no different than when say Taxis in Toronto "protest" they are warned by police not to obstruct traffic. If they fail to comply then they "may" be charged, but most often aren't. There was in this case an "extenuating circumstance" that being the "agreement" to block the highway by those involved.
Simple I was speaking, (as were you at the time), of a SINGLE vehicle traveling the speed limit in the case provided it was a concerted effort to obstruct the flow of traffic by occupying all lanes of the highway. The drivers involved were driving their personal vehicles and I highly doubt the speedometers were properly calibrated. As it has been shown MANY times in the past that if your speedometer is showing 100, your actually traveling somewhere around 90 km/h. Which in fact means Mr Thompson and his "merry gang" were indeed traveling at LESS than the posted limit of 100 km/h. therefore, an appropriate course of action was taken. You can't rely upon the media to point out the actual facts, (they only reported that Mr Thompson and the others were traveling at 100 km/h as that is likely what Mr Thompson told them he was doing, because he didn't take into account the manufacturers standard practice of intentionally setting the speedometer to read higher than the actual speed.
We have not seen the court transcript it "could" be that the officers testified that the speed was lower than 100 km/h. Regardless My position still remains if a driver is driving at the LEGALLY posted speed on any highway in the province of Ontario they will NOT be charged, AND CONVICTED of doing so.
Again ones self entitled "opinion" that "everyone" needs to drive at 120 to not block the flow, simply is not factual. Again rigs are governed to travel at 105 MAXIMUM, some actually drive at 100 km, yet we don't see the OPP and MTO inspectors tagging them daily because they as Private Pilot stated are courteous and do not INTENTIONALLY block the highway. You will note MR Thompson, was charged with obstructing NOT driving 100 km/h in a posted 100 km/h zone. I have been doing the 2.5 hour drive 2 - 4 times per week to see my ailing mom in Hospital from Oshawa to St Thomas over the past 4 months. I used to set my cruise at 115, then I realized my mileage was sucking so I now set it at 108. This causes my rpm's to drop by almost 500, and I now get an extra 75 km out of a tank of fuel. Now at 108 my car is actually traveling at about 101, (I had a friend radar it)..lol SO I guess in your opinion I should be pulled over and "talked to" every time I make this run by the OPP because I chose not to speed to appease some self entitled, fool? I would relish the day ANY officer pulled me over, either for a talking to or to ticket me. I can assure you, it would not have the same outcome as Mr Thompson had. I don't conspire with others to obstruct a highway at less than the posted limit.
Last edited:
How can they be blocking the highway if they're doing the legal limit -- or even 8kph or so slow? According to you the legal limit is the be all and end all, the absolute maximum allowed. Faster drivers are the problem and they should be slowing down, not the other way around, right?
You said the "rule of thumb used to be the vehicle had to be traveling at LEAST 50% of the posted limit to even consider laying the charge." So your speedo calibration "argument" holds no water.
You said the "rule of thumb used to be the vehicle had to be traveling at LEAST 50% of the posted limit to even consider laying the charge." So your speedo calibration "argument" holds no water.
Last edited:
I am sorry I don't have the time or the energy to explain simple logic to you perhaps try google. Then when you have done all that work go back and read my entire post in context rather than trying to start a pissing match due to lack of comprehension. Class dismissed. FYI the OPP likely won't be following your advice on pulling over any single vehicle doing the legal limit anytime soon, But you can email the commissioner, (Vince Hawkes), with your advice on how they should police the highways.
1) When the wall in Europe came down there was in incredible influx of basically untrained drivers on German Autobauns with no lasting ill effects. A simple set of rules (ie keep right except when passing) means different levels of riders can safely get along.
2) It's been shown worldwide that most drivers will drive at speeds that are safe and reasonable for the conditions. When speed limits were increased in the USA average speeds remained largely unchanged but fatality rates dropped. When daytime speed limits in Montana became "whatever was safe and reasonable for the conditions" Fatality rates dropped in HALF. Average speeds didn't change noticeably. (If I recall correctly the increased safety was attributed to people staying right, people paying more attention, less road rage and less "clump ups" of cars as a result of more variance in speeds which meant less likely to have pileups.)
..Tom
If there is a posted speed limit that is too low for what most drivers would consider reasonable (and evidence on the ground suggests that 100 km/h on a 400 series highway is too low for what most drivers would consider reasonable) then you get people who park in the left lane going 100 (or 110 ...) and say "I don't have to pay attention to what's behind. I'm not breaking the law (or not breaking it by much) and everyone else is breaking the law by wanting to pass." So they camp in the left lane and faster traffic has to change lanes to get around them ... it makes lane discipline fall apart. And because they're going the speed limit, or perhaps a little bit more, there's really nothing anyone (including the cops) can say about it.
On the other hand, if the posted limit is 130 km/h (as it is in most of Europe on a road like that), someone who wants to go 110 or 120 ought to realize that they are going slower than the limit and perhaps maybe they should be in the right lane. Just because the speed limit is 130 km/h doesn't mean you have to do that.
'Course it helps if cops enforce lane discipline ... and if they don't have to enforce speed limits as much (reasonable i.e. HIGHER speed limits will do that) then they can pay more attention to things like not keeping to the right, etc.
Europe doesn't seem to have difficulty with large trucks governed to 100 km/h in the right lane only on motorways that otherwise have a 130 km/h limit ... If you are towing a trailer, same thing, 100 km/h max, right lane only.
Funniest thing I saw on the autobahn was a Citroen 2CV (600cc engine) towing a trailer! Definitely right lane for that one!
On the other hand, if the posted limit is 130 km/h (as it is in most of Europe on a road like that), someone who wants to go 110 or 120 ought to realize that they are going slower than the limit and perhaps maybe they should be in the right lane. Just because the speed limit is 130 km/h doesn't mean you have to do that.
'Course it helps if cops enforce lane discipline ... and if they don't have to enforce speed limits as much (reasonable i.e. HIGHER speed limits will do that) then they can pay more attention to things like not keeping to the right, etc.
Europe doesn't seem to have difficulty with large trucks governed to 100 km/h in the right lane only on motorways that otherwise have a 130 km/h limit ... If you are towing a trailer, same thing, 100 km/h max, right lane only.
Funniest thing I saw on the autobahn was a Citroen 2CV (600cc engine) towing a trailer! Definitely right lane for that one!
That's open to a lot of interpretation. Gramps or soccer moms are probably just fine at 100, and at or near the edge of their skills & abilities at those speeds for that matter.
A lot of other more skilled drivers operating higher performance vehicles, or hell, even run of the mill cars... probably consider 100 entirely unreasonable.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
I once drove a 1985 non aspirated VW diesel Golf that struggled to reach 100kph and took forever to get there. I just stayed in the right lane and weathered the looks of scorn as even tractor trailers passed me by. What a royal PITA at intersections too... I needed a helluva gap to not impede someone.
I usually set the cruise at 110. If the speed limit was 130 I'd probably still set the cruise at 110.
I can't help but be skeptical of people in the GTA rambling on about increasing speed limits. 100 is just fine within the GTA, you'd rarely be able to go much faster than that anyhow. East of Oshawa or West of Milton it could be 120 but I don't see any need for changing the limit in the city itself.
I can't help but be skeptical of people in the GTA rambling on about increasing speed limits. 100 is just fine within the GTA, you'd rarely be able to go much faster than that anyhow. East of Oshawa or West of Milton it could be 120 but I don't see any need for changing the limit in the city itself.
Yup. There are, for example, vast, wide-open stretches of the 407 that are begging for a 120 or 130kph legal limit. Same goes for stretches of the 401 between Kitchener and Windsor or Oshawa and Ottawa. If necessary, speed limits could be throttled back through areas like TO or London much as is done in Germany where Autobahns have stretches of no-limits and strictly policed areas of lower limits.
But that makes too much sense.
|
|
|
|
|