Maybe there would be less motorcycle deaths if the our speed limits were reasonable

[Flashmonkey]

Forum Sponsor

No offence, but do you really believe that will make any difference?

I don't.

I usually find that the drivers who drive at the limit, slightly below the limit, or way below the limit do so because of ineptiude. Whether or not that ineptitude is caused by some kind of physical or mental impairment, lack of confidence/experience, or general incompetence, the fact of the matter remains that if we were to raise the speed limits, we would just force these people to drive ineptly at higher speeds.

A good example of this is McCowan Road north of Steeles. The limit there is, what, 70 kph? That raised speed limit doesn't stop people from driving like complete ****ing retards there.

Also, I've noticed that they've started adding all kinds of stop light intersections everywhere. I doubt this is helping congestion issues at all.

So in short, it doesn't matter what we do, because we're all screwed.

 

[caboose56]

People keep raising Montana without recognizing that Montana is a much different different place than The GTA from the standpoints of average travel distances, and both traffic and population densities.

Also, when you look at the actual numbers per KM travelled, Montana isn't all that safe a place to drive.

Fixed. How does Montana compare to the 900,000 sq-km of Ontario that is not the GTA? Pretty similar?

What are the stats for Montana prior to 2001?

 

[fyrebug]

Of course it is the speed that is causing the lack of attention? Dude come on, when people are on the cell phone they tend to drive SLOWER because their brain can't do two things at once. So yes, people not paying attention will cause just as many accidents, but I doubt their speed will increase much.

if you want more speed a much more logical plan to me is the following: highway right lane 100, left lane legal up to 130-140.

 

[CanadianBiker]

It should be simple here.
120-130kph on the highway
100 on rural roads
50 if you are going through a small group of homes in a hamlet or town, but back up to 100 once the farms start.

Uh, no.
I live in farm country and have seen more than enough when cars go flying down country roads only to slam into slow-moving tractors. Try pulling out of a driveway when the traffic is going 100kph, or pulling into one. What may seem like an "empty" road to you is actually the street where I live, so if you want to encourage speeding in someone's neighbourhood, please volunteer your own.

 

[invictus43]

Yes I do. It will reduce aggressive passing maneuvers on country roads and take left lane bandits out of the passing lane on the highways or at least make them go with the current flow. So again, it will help to reduce stress levels on the highways and facilitate flow. You might get the odd guy that wants to go 150, but generally I think the majority of the population would keep going at the typical flow as opposed to the oddball that screws up traffic.

The de-facto speed limit is already 120 on the highways..if you raise it even further the pepole who choose to drive randomly on the highway will now cause an even HIGHER closing speed with other vehicles, which is a big part of the problem. Remember, trucks are still limited to 100 or 105kmh. So you still have that moving roadblock out there. Certain highways and roads aren't designed or safe at speeds that they're already posted at.

People treat driving like walking on the beach..they just don't care..nothing can happen..they do it all the time. Until people treat it seriously, ALL people, no amount of speed limit increase will help other than to cause bigger accidents when they actually happen.

I'm really not against higher speeds at some times, really. I regularly do 140 up north where they have less traffic and more predictability. But there are so many factors to just lump it all together. Montana ain't Ontario..I get the stats, I understand the allure. But it's really hard to make a blanket statement about speed limits. A much more useful statement would be, better drivers would reduce fatalities.

 

[Holmes]

Pass the popcorn!


I love being entertained at work.

 

[Fiery254]

I cant be bothered to read all this thread, but would say this (for the umpteenth time). Driver education and training in Canada is less than 3rd world standard. If you want to reduce traffic accidents then make people earn their licences by showing a higher skill level than being able to unlock their car and negotiate a Timmys drive thru. It doesn't matter what the speed limit is if poorly skilled riders/drivers are on the road. A proper graduated licence system for motorcycles and a real driver test for car drivers. Not the farce that is currently in play in Ontario.

 

[Holmes]

I cant be bothered to read all this thread, but would say this (for the umpteenth time). Driver education and training in Canada is less than 3rd world standard. If you want to reduce traffic accidents then make people earn their licences by showing a higher skill level than being able to unlock their car and negotiate a Timmys drive thru. It doesn't matter what the speed limit is if poorly skilled riders/drivers are on the road. A proper graduated licence system for motorcycles and a real driver test for car drivers. Not the farce that is currently in play in Ontario.

Most cant even do that...

They dont actually mean DRIVE THROUGH ya stupid idiots

Oh and theres a million more pics of cars crashing into tims lol

 

[FullMotoJacket]

It's a proven fact that banning car tires on motorcycles will reduce motorcyclst fatalities.

 

[Fiery254]

It's a proven fact that banning car tires on motorcycles will reduce motorcyclst fatalities.

Turbodish would disagree.

 

[YellowDuck]

The de-facto speed limit is already 120 on the highways..if you raise it even further the pepole who choose to drive randomly on the highway will now cause an even HIGHER closing speed with other vehicles, which is a big part of the problem.

Yes, and if you are driving on the 400 with *everyone* else going 120, and suddenly come up on a car going 100 (possibly in the LEFT LANE), there is suddenly all types of congestion and people doing scary stuff to get around the roadblock. I have long felt that it is *differences* in speed between vehicles, not really speed itself, that creates the danger.

Solution? Easy. Get the police to put down their radar guns and start enforcing things that actually improve safety, such as lane discipline and keeping large trucks out of the passing lane. Then raise the limits to what everyone knows they should be (they are voting with their right feet) and actually enforce those limits *at the limit*, not some vague "okay, today we have decided that the real limit is 18.5 kph above what is posted, but we'll leave it up to you to guess what it really is, and slam on your brakes whenever you see a Crown Vic parked beside the road".

 

[invictus43]

Yes, and if you are driving on the 400 with *everyone* else going 120, and suddenly come up on a car going 100 (possibly in the LEFT LANE), there is suddenly all types of congestion and people doing scary stuff to get around the roadblock. I have long felt that it is *differences* in speed between vehicles, not really speed itself, that creates the danger.

Solution? Easy. Get the police to put down their radar guns and start enforcing things that actually improve safety, such as lane discipline and keeping large trucks out of the passing lane. Then raise the limits to what everyone knows they should be (they are voting with their right feet) and actually enforce those limits *at the limit*, not some vague "okay, today we have decided that the real limit is 18.5 kph above what is posted, but we'll leave it up to you to guess what it really is, and slam on your brakes whenever you see a Crown Vic parked beside the road".

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I wish the police would do more to promote better habits, like left-lane discipline. I didn't agree with the speed limit on trucks frankly, but it's out there now and won't be repealed, like all laws. I find most truck drivers to be fairly professional and I don't single them out. They're generally very predictable and very good. But yes, speed differential is a big problem. And some roads simply can't sustain higher limits. The Gardiner and Don Valley are good examples..they don't have a great deal of excess sight-line distance.

 

[turbodish]

Fixed. How does Montana compare to the 900,000 sq-km of Ontario that is not the GTA? Pretty similar?

What are the stats for Montana prior to 2001?

Montana's fatality per distance rate in 2007 was 2.45 fatalities per 100,000 miles travelled, which translates to about 3.95 fatalities per 100,000 km travelled.

Ontario's overall fatality rate in 2008 was about 0.51 fatalities per 100,000 km travelled. That's all of Ontario, including the non-GTA areas.

Southern Ontario's population density is 86.4 persons per sq km. Montana's is 2.5 per sq km. Their largest extended metropolitan area is 158,000 people, and most of their remaining 6 "largest" metropolitan areas are smaller than Barrie. You really have to go out of your way to find another vehicle to run into, but they seem to do so in Montana in about 40% of Montana fatality crashes.

The remaining 60% are single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes, which is inverse to Ontario's approx 40% of such crashes.

With respect to the Montana Paradox, that paradox is based on looking at a small period of time immediately before and immediately after imposition of the new speed limits. It would be reasonable to expect that there would have been significant speed differentials in the immediate aftermath where you had a mix of drivers abiding by the new speed limit in conflict with those who chose to ignore the new limits in the face of Montana's comparatively lax speed enforcement, minimal fines, and minimal police presence in the rural areas.

Montana itself has a relatively small statistical base on which to compare from year to year. From 96 to 97, fatalities jumped from 200 to 265 in just one year. That year was, ironically, during the time of no posted speed limits. Two years later in 1999 it was back down to 220. As Montana's DOT themselves admit:

Often it is safer to look at long-term trends, rather than a one-year increase or decrease which may have occurred from something as simple as an unusual winter or statistical variation. A change of 30 fatalities is not significant in Montana and can be caused by simple statistical variation. Perhaps a particular traffic safety intervention had no impact at all, but some other variable created the perceived result.

Looking at the longer term, fatalities dropped significantly during the time of the national 55 mph speed limit. When that was repealed in 1995, Montana rescinded their daytime speed limits and fatalities spiked upwards. Imposing a 75 mph speed limit in 1999 had little effect on overall actual speeds travelled by many because speeding ticket fines were abysmally low. See page 9 at http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/safety/probid.pdf for the fatality graph over time.

Only recently have speeding fines been raised, still at abysmally low levels by any standard. The short term effect might be contributing to a slight decrease in fatality rates, though those rates are still the highest among all US states.

I. Violation of Statutory Speed Limits Under '61-8-303. 1 to 10 MPH over the speed limit-$20;
11 to 20 MPH over the speed limit-$40;
21 to 30 MPH over the speed limit-$70;
and 31 or more MPH over the speed limit- $100
'61-8-725(1)

Pointing to Montana as some sort of "proof" that higher or even no speed limits at all is somehow safe is flawed on so many levels and simply not borne out by the numbers.

 

[caboose56]

Montana's fatality per distance rate in 2007 was 2.45 fatalities per 100,000 miles travelled, which translates to about 3.95 fatalities per 100,000 km travelled.

Ontario's overall fatality rate........ something something something dark side... something something something complete.

So do you or do you not have the statistics for 2001 and earlier?

How do Ontarios statistics differ between the GTA and rural areas?

 

[turbodish]

So do you or do you not have the statistics for 2001 and earlier?

How do Ontarios statistics differ between the GTA and rural areas?

Stats for pre-2001 Montana are in the link I gave.

Ontario's stats are all-Ontario. Given that all Ontario is MUCH bigger than just the immediate GTA and includes a lot of rural area, I'd venture that the stats for rural Ontario is still much better than anything Montana.

 

[Holmes]

Yes, and if you are driving on the 400 with *everyone* else going 120, and suddenly come up on a car going 100 (possibly in the LEFT LANE), there is suddenly all types of congestion and people doing scary stuff to get around the roadblock. I have long felt that it is *differences* in speed between vehicles, not really speed itself, that creates the danger.

Solution? Easy. Get the police to put down their radar guns and start enforcing things that actually improve safety, such as lane discipline and keeping large trucks out of the passing lane. Then raise the limits to what everyone knows they should be (they are voting with their right feet) and actually enforce those limits *at the limit*, not some vague "okay, today we have decided that the real limit is 18.5 kph above what is posted, but we'll leave it up to you to guess what it really is, and slam on your brakes whenever you see a Crown Vic parked beside the road".

This! Problem is... its hard to prove someone was doing something unsafe (much easier to prove speeding) so many tickets would get thrown out. Now the message would be made clear to the driver but they wouldnt make money off it, and that is just unacceptable lol.

 

[Metastable]

Turbo - why do you think there are so many vehicle-vehicle collisions in Montana for their population density? I don't know buy I can think of a few.
- People falling asleep covering big distances and wandering into the other lane
- Because the population density is so low, and they have harsh winters... roads probably don't get plowed as often and one guy loses control and is hit by another.

Dunno that's just me thinking out loud. Also you do have to understand that Ontario has a pretty LOW average speed/distance traveled because Toronto has millions and millions of vehicles stuck in traffic jams all the time. So ya it would safer to have everyone drive at 50kph everywhere.

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

Now as far as country roads going to 100 or highways going to 120 or 130.

That is the "normal" speed anyway, so we wouldn't be changing anything, except getting slower people to get out of the way on highways. And like I said before, it isn't like people will now drive 150 on the highway and 120 on the country roads. If you REALLY think that would be a problem, then adjust the fines to be THE SAME PENALTY for doing, say... 110 in a 100,in a country road as it is now if you are going 110 in an 80. Surely if someone is worried about the Penalties of going X speed, then they aren't going to be OK with going even FASTER and acquiring more Penalties.

BTW - I don't think the penalties matter much. I can take you to a road near my house that is 50kph that most people drive at 70-90kph...... and another that is 80 and most drive at 60-70. Then there is one where cops sit at ALL THE TIME that is a 60 zone with people usually doing 80-90.

 

[mmmnaked]

I don't think the article in the original post means anything other than: speed cameras cause accidents.

It's not the speed that caused those accidents, its the existence of the [plainly visible] cameras hanging over the roadways, possibly causing people to brake suddenly or become distracted/spooked at their sight.

 

[jc100]

In the UK people speed between the known speed camera locations. I can see where the problems lie with the original report. If locations were more mobile I'm reasonably sure the stats would look different.

One other point...I don't have a problem with the highway speed limit being raised to 120kmh in line with quite a few countries, but how many of you would accept that limit being rigidly enforced as it is in say the UK? Right now, like most of you I drive at 120kmh on the highways, I agree that is the approximate average speed on highways and I've been doing that for 15 years without problems. The only paradox I find with this country compared with others is that this seemingly universally tolerated speed hasn't been amended in the statutes and posted as the de facto maximum speed for highways but it may be due to not wanting to enforce a rigorous limit and it may also be due to the fact that if raised to 120kmh there's a significant number of drivers who would assume that 20 above that figure would then be tolerated.

As for country roads, 80 seems fair. As Fiery says, the majority of drivers here don't seem to take driving seriously enough in order to ensure that they can cope with less road, tighter curves, less visibility and slower and more unpredictable obstacles. The national speed limit in the UK on single track country roads is higher only because the driving test is much more rigorous, I can't remember the failure rate but it is very significant.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

The national speed limit in the UK on single track country roads is higher only because the driving test is much more rigorous, I can't remember the failure rate but it is very significant.

Really ???? You guys really believe that better ministry education or tighter exams will cure the problem here ?

Forum Sponsor