I agree to Idea Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit to 120-130 km/h
Voting Disabled

1016 votes

I disagree to Idea Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit to 120-130 km/h

Rank3

Idea#660

This idea is active.
Fair & Just Society »

Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit to 120-130 km/h

Ontario has THE LOWEST speed limit in North America! Our speed limit was 112 km/h (70MPH) forty years ago! Now, with much safer cars, it is 100 km/h (62MPH). http://www.stop100.ca

We want to legally drive at 120-130 km/h just like the citizens of over 60 jurisdictions world-wide, including the USA and EU. Countries and states that post 120-130 km/h on speed limits signs do not see a carnage, but smoothly flowing roads!

We want to drive freely and legally on our world-class highways, with full focus on the road. We are tired of driving in fear of arbitrary and random police enforcement, harsh penalties and unjust insurance rate hikes.

Increasing divided freeway speed limits has no effect on fatality rates. Multiple countries and jurisdictions have recently done the same with no fatality rate increase. In Utah, the authorities have observed no change in the number of fatalities and an 11-20% drop in vehicle crashes following the speed limit increase from 75 to 80 MPH (120 to 128 km/h).

For more information please visit us at http://www.stop100.ca and support us now!

Submitted by 1 year ago

Comments (192)

  1. Pinned Moderator

    Please note that this idea 'disappeared' for a few minutes because it was flagged by users. It passed the 'flagging' threshold and was thus put in the in review hidden bin.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  2. btg Merged

    It is insane that we have a 100kph speed limit on 400 series highways.

    the roads were designed for 70mph, and cars are safer now than they ever have been - fatalaity rates keep dorpping...

    yet the speed limits are a farce - the cops accept that people will drive 10 to 16 kph, so when you do get a ticket, the fines are higher than is justified.

    What kills people is not driving too fast, but driving too fast for conditons, or being distracted...

    Having unrealistically low speed limits just make speople cyncial about obeying the law.

    (And please do not give me the argument about wasted fuel - the best way to dealw ith waste is higher gas taxes or carbon taxes, so we pay what people pay in Europe or Japan - I get better gas mileage at 120kph in my small, economy car than most drivers get at 100kph)

    1 year ago
    141 Agreed
    28 Disagreed
    1. i agree but i live 160 km away from the nearest 400 series highway.when they lowered the speed limits they lowered 2 lane kings highways down to 50 miles an hour from 60 mph .we have the slowest speed limits in Canada .higher speed limits in the USA have not resulted in more accidents .the accident rate has been in steady decline for 50 years now .higher speed limits increase productivity and can improve the mood of a nation .when the 55 mph speed limit was abolished , it helped lift the US out of recession .

      1 year ago
      23 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    2. The lower the speed limit, the greater the financial incentive for police to target individuals who are driving beyond the speed limit.

      1 year ago
      23 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. btg

      The police doen;t set the speed limit or keep the money - muncipal governments do, except on highways.

      But it is true that effectively there is a quota... any cop whho doesn't hand out enough tickets gets in trouble... so they go for th elow hanging fruit of people speeding where the speed limit is far ower than what most people think is a safe speed.

      1 year ago
      19 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. It's a well known fact that most people do good around 120 on the highways. Make that the speed limit and strictly enforce it. Collisions happen when drivers don't follow the natural flow of traffic (some are too slow, some are too fast).

      In less busier sections of the highway (i.e. rural sections), speed limits could be raised even further (130?)

      We should be looking at Germany and their autobahn system as an example.

      1 year ago
      100 Agreed
      17 Disagreed
      1. Moderator

        You might be interested in this very well-done video criticizing ICBC's stance on driving enforcement.

        http://www.vicnews.com/news/223653841.html

        1 year ago
      2. t2112 Merged

        Raise the speed 120 to 130 mph

        1 year ago
      3. P L

        Our speed limits were set more than half a century ago. Vehicle technology has improved vastly since then. It's about time we upgraded our speed limitations to reflect the 21st century.

        1 year ago
    5. Although we are of like minds regarding the need for higher limits I think it is important to note that most speed related accidents have to do with the speed diferential on the highways. Right now most drive about 20k over, what makes it dangerous is those few that bottle things up by driving the limit! Most people will tend to drive at a speed they feel is reasonalble (i.e. 120 - 130) regardless of any posted limit.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    6. Here is a link to a really good video that supports the higher limits:

      http://www.sensebc.org/

      Its about B.C. but would apply here too.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    7. Fatality rates keep dropping because cars and medical trauma care keep improving. Increased speeds will mean increased crash forces which will offset the gains enjoyed by safer cars and medical trauma care, and we will see fatality rates rise as they have in other places where speed limits have increased.

      No thanks. Saving a scant few minutes on a typical morning commute isn't worth it.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      36 Disagreed
    8. cars may be better but drivers and roads are not. Accidents have not gone down, drivers do stupid things. and 100, many people go way over that now, if you make it 120, me thinks many drivers will start going 135-150. way to fast for our roads.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      28 Disagreed
    9. Very well said.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      8 Disagreed
    10. Higher speed limits give better efficiencies all around!!! Reducing road blockages & stop and go traffic (accelerate/brake) will reduce fuel consumption considerably. HOWEVER better discipline - re. lane use - should be enforced; and some drivers (unsafe!! at any speed), should be required to proof (by passing a REAL driving test) that they are not a danger to others.

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    11. Accidents are caused by people looking out for police who are hiding and looking out for planes in the air. It has become a war to a sense where we are fighting for our rights on the road, we are waisting more fuel rolling at 100km/h then at 130 due to the gear of our vehicles who are designed for high speed roads with 6 to 7 gears.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    12. Well said. Everyone should watch this very well made video:

      [YT]2BKdbxX1pDw[/YT]

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  3. Jon

    Yes please

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. Absolutely agreed. The current speed limits are a joke, nobody actually drives at 100, and an unenforced law shouldn't be considered a law at all.

    I would also support strengthening of current driver education laws to increase the number of classroom and in-car sessions, as well as to make the tests more difficult to pass.

    1 year ago
    31 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Perhaps a course that teaches you to drive how most do, ie: palming the wheel...lol

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  5. This will also strengthen Ontario by cutting commuting times for workers and goods and services.

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. I see more accidents at these speed limits, i.e. slowing things even more. our drivers nor our roads are good enough for these speed limits people are talking about, and most people seem to think that it is a suggestion anyways, and go 20% over the posted limit.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      15 Disagreed
    2. Terri... I disagree with the accident identification you have submitted onto 120km/h speeds. Perhaps 75 mph would work better for you. People who like to drive slower stay in the lane designated for your driving ability which is the far right lane. 100kph folks stay away from the left lane, this is for passing and faster traffic.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  6. There are many places where 120+ KMH is just fine. But there are also many places - almost any urban center - where 120 KMH is too fast given the traffic volume, signage, exits & entrances, and so on. Yes, cars are much better these days.....but drivers are not. Raise the limit and you'll find just as many idiots going 10-20 KMH over the NEW limit.

    Yes, I am sympathetic to this for many stretches of highway....but it can't be throughout the 400-series.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    40 Disagreed
    1. Hi Gord, I don't believe the idea is intended to be throughout the entire 400-series. Similar to what you suggest, the stop100 campaign is not asking for 120 km/hr in hazardous areas such as short ramps, sharp curves, etc.

      1 year ago
      20 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. Gord, I agree. Lets look at the 400 as an example. The hi way is meant to have a 130 speed limit. It is straight north and south with few curves. The 401 in some areas could be 130 but mostly 120 the 407 in most areas 130 with a few 120 spots and so forth. The United States drops the spped limit from 75 to between 55/65 mph when the hi way goes through an urban center. Its all about signs in the right place. Minimum speed limits should also be aplied as they have in BC, if your POS can not obtain a certain speed then it can't go on the hi way. This is all common sense and should be applied. People are doing 120/130 all the time now. I do 110 to save gas and I'm being passed by everyone including my grandmother. I hardly ever pass anyone at that speed. So that tells me that most people would be fine with uping the limit. 130 outer lane 120 middle 100/110 inner. Just makes sense. Moving people services and goods more efficiently will help Ontario move forward. Accidents happen at any speed when drivers do not pay attention.

      1 year ago
      19 Agreed
      3 Disagreed
    3. Good drivers always drive to conditions (road, weather, vehicle, medical,..etc.), irrespective to the posted limit (which should be realistic for BEST conditions). Unfortunately many drivers have never learned to judge conditions. This failure should be remedied by making it part of the driver education/test!!

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. Hi Gord,

      While common knowledge may suggest that people will just continue to do the same speed over the limit as they do now, the research doesn't support this. Drivers drive at speeds that they believe feels safe to them. The speed limit should be set at the 85th percentile of drivers speed, which on the 400 series highway is around 122km/h.

      Source: Speedkills your pocketbook

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  7. All Ontario has to do is copy French , Polish , or Italian system ! I'm not even going to mention German one......

    1 year ago
    20 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Most US states have also recently raised their limits. Ohio is the latest one. Now almost every US states has more reasonable upper limits than does Ontario.

      1 year ago
      22 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  8. This notion that all people will drive 20-30kph above a 120kph speed limit is absurd, if someone choose to drive above a designated speed limit they will do so regardless of the posted speed. The vast majority drive 120-130kph anyways and I doubt they will choose to drive 150-160kph with a raised limit..

    Raise the limit and everything will be fine.

    1 year ago
    36 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. Right on. Exactly what I observed.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. truly said

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  9. Every single country in the western world has speed limits of 130km per hour. If there is a country to copy we can copy Germany which enforces via those lovely digital signs speed limits when its raining or heavy rush hour traffic within city limits to 100kph, however when its after rush hour, they pop back up to 130kph. However the portions of highway between Toronto and Windsor to the Quebec border should all be incresed to 130kph immeidiately. Trust me when you go to Austria or France or Slovakia the speed limits are 130 and people drive about 135 since that is a speed they feel is comfortable and safe and reasonable. People are not reckless and dangerous. As well I would also get rid of the insane 50kph $10,000 fine and car impound infraction. This is ridiculous and complete over kill to a problem that does not exist. Lastly I would also recommend increasing ALL speed limits, country roads in Ontario are set at 80, once again in Europe they would be at 90 or 100 and 6 lane roads such as Dixie Road in Mississauga are set at 60 when they should also be set to 70. The fact is that speed limits have become a "tax" on the driver and in fact an unfair battle against the common man. If the Liberals firmly support this and propose to implement it in their first 100 days in office without some crazy studies that will take 3 years they will get my vote!

    1 year ago
    31 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. Not to mention that here in Ontario, we always have further to drive to get anywhere. Everything in Europe is much closer together.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  10. Agree the 400 series should be 130, however, the current 80Km. roads should also increase to at least 100. Currently most people drive at 100 on these roads and when the OPP need more 'quota' they go out and ticket (road tax).

    100 is perfectly safe.

    My guess is the liberals would increase fines etc. if they get up the courage to increase the speed limits as I believe to them its all about tax.

    1 year ago
    25 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  11. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. In parts of the west it's 110 and everyone cruises along at 120 without problems. They're doing the same here with a lower limit. Increasing it will not promote 150+ km/h speeds. Ontario doesn't seem to get it but the more they tell you no, the more people do it anyways. Increase this and get rid of hta172 as it's a joke.

    1 year ago
    21 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  12. The speed limits in Ontario are a joke. I am so fed up with them. I demand that they be raised

    1 year ago
    19 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  13. Raising the speed limit without increasing the penalty for slower drivers hogging the left hand lane makes the entire thing futile.

    Unlimited speed on the German autoBahn works because drivers know to:

    1. Keep to the right unless passing

    2. Enter traffic from an on ramp.

    3. Use turn signals to indicate lane changes.

    4. Understand how their vehicle handles at high speed.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of Canadian drivers are pathetic when placed on a freeway.

    1 year ago
    32 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
    1. Here here

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. While it is true that the Germans and other European countries often have better drivers than Canada (mainly due to better education before receiving a full license), the data simply doesn't support what you are saying. A study was done where speed limits were raised and lowered on highways across North America, and on roads where the speed limit was increased to what the road was designed to handle, the number of accidents actually decreased. The reverse was true when speed limits were lowered.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. ken

      Well said, Chris. I often drive the 401 into Toronto from the east and back. Way too many people lingering in the left lane, unaware of what's around them or just don't care. Your suggestions will promotes smooth flow of traffic = lower accident rates. Ironic that many of these drivers maintain the same speed, in the same lane, regardless of weather or visibility.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  14. Here is the link to a really good video that supports this approach of higher limits:

    http://www.sensebc.org/

    Its about B.C. but would apply here too.

    1 year ago
    13 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  15. We need reasonable limits!

    1 year ago
    17 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. We are already driving this fast.Make it legal and have the police enforce the dangers out there, like impeding traffic (lane discipline), distracted driving ,people driving rolling snow banks(not clearing their cars in winter and not signaling.

    1 year ago
    20 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. I feel that our tax dollars can be used much more efficiently than policing individuals traveling at safe and economically viable speeds of 125-130 km/h. Traffic flows at this rate from coast to coast and the only thing that I am personally worried about when operating any of my many vehicles is the police hiding waiting to write me a ticket, or the person in front of me hitting their brakes to avoid a ticket themselves. The price of the ticket isn't even the problem its the waste of time and the insurance increases that bother me, as well as the point system on our licenses. It should be much more difficult to take someones livelihood away than giving a few tickets for safely operating ones vehicle.

    Transports use more fuel operating at 100 km/h as well. Due to the many gears in the transmissions and the speeds at which they operate, they should be traveling at 115-122 km/h to maximize weight to speed ratios with hills ect.

    Being an avid automobile enthusiast and builder I feel it is a sin to have a 60 mph speed limit. We are artificially stuck at a low speed limit because of the metric system and finances. 100 seems like a large round big number and thus the speed you drive is incorrectly associated with a financial landmark. If we measured speed in meters/sec or hectares/sec the number 100 would become meaningless.

    I feel that people who are more familiar with the art of driving should be given a lee way over someone who is learning to drive for the first time.

    Traveling at 125-130 kmh is a good speed which will not cause average speeding to also increase. The reason people speed is to get past and far away from all the people driving 85-105 with inconsistent movements and unsafe driving habits. These are the people we need to associate with accidents and road rage. Teach drivers what winter tires are for and how they work, how to operate your vehicle to the conditions. Teach drivers the speeds you should be going in the left lane, middle lane and the right lanes. This would stop Ontario's terribly messy roads. Every time I drive on Ontario roads I cant help but shake my head at the disaster I see. They are an absolute mess! People are driving 100km/h in the left lane which is meant for a passing lane and 120 km/h in the slow lane or right lanes. The right lane is the slow lane because it is next to the shoulder and the merging lane connects to the right lane thus it is the slow lane.

    People who are new drivers should be in the right hand lane paying attention to conditions and changing traffic conditions instead of text messaging at 99km/h in the left hand lane. This is what causes road rage, especially when I get a ticket for passing this person and the officer approaches the situation with the fact that the speed limit does say 100 km/h as a MAXIMUM. This is preposterous. I think the government needs to understand that just because I am a Canadian doesnt also mean retard.

    Regards,

    1 year ago
    18 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  18. I participate in track events and feel much more confident behind the wheel. I wish other drivers did the same.

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. I agree - The speed limit should be at 120-130 for the highways...

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  20. 120, absolutely. That's only 75 miles per hour. The roads and cars are built to drive at those speeds. Get with it Ontario!

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  21. French Speed Limit on their expressways is 130kph and on the side roads is 100kph. I am not going to talk about Germany. Let's at least catch up to Western Europe with our speed limits. We have a HUGE country with much lower population density for Pete's sake!

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  22. reg

    Limits are way too low, our vehicles can handle much higher speeds with minimal driver input. Usually the speed alone won't have any affect, but it's the relative speed that will. If drivers travel at close to the same speed, nothing will really change for them.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  23. Along with increasing the speed limit, we need to teach drivers proper lane disciple so traffic can move more smoothly.

    1 year ago
    16 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. Our speed limits are rediculouse , this must change and start enforcing rules of the road, to keep left lane open for passing, merge hwy at the same speed as traffic flow and not 30 under, just stopping in the left lane to make right turn and vise versa , making left turns through 3 lanes of traffic while blocking them, stopping on the main road in right lane to pick up or drop off, there is plenty of things to enforce

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  25. I find that different vehicles has something to do with the level of comfort one experiences on the highway. A toyota matrix and a crown victoria have a very different feel when traveling on the highway. Chances are that if someone isnt comfortable traveling at 130 on the highway they are trying to save $300 per year by riding in a smart car and your making everyone else's lives harder with your terrible driving and inept choice of transportation! If you like 100km/h take the back roads and do 90 instead.

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. have you ever driven a smart car? It doesn't have much issue with 130.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  26. I hope that the speed limit isnt 100 because the police and the insurance companies are making their fair share off of our hard earned money ..........

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  27. Please increase the speed limits! 60 miles per hour is very slow. My daughter who has just a learners permit can comfortably drive at 100km/h what does this say for those of us who have more skill than my 16 year old.

    If we continue to baby immigrants then we will never have safe roads. To be Canadian means you wear a jacket in the winter, fit "eh" into normal sentences without knowing it and lastly learn how to drive in snow and how to use the lanes properly on the roads.

    This makes it fair for those of us who call Canada their one and only home.

    1 year ago
    11 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  28. 100 is too hard to follow. I am a girl and a ditsy one at that and even I feel the need to speed up a little to feel comfortable. I support you guys.

    1 year ago
    8 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  29. No thanks. Leave the speed limits as they are. If you feel you must raise the limit, then do so together with rigid enforcement of the new limit and harsher penalties for exceeding that new limit. The net effect would be no change in traffic speeeds.

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    21 Disagreed
  30. While I realize that law enforcement has become an incredible growth industry in this part of the world, I think that all honest and decent people would like to have much less interaction with police. Please make this change and let the police devote their efforts towards dealing with real criminals.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  31. The speed limit was lowered from 70 mph to 100 kmh in order to reduce fuel consumption. Considering the damage we are doing to the planet with our hydrocarbon focussed society, it would be irresponsible to raise the speed limit.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    31 Disagreed
    1. LOL. lololololololololol

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. If you want less pollution then change your car from pickup truck to a smaller car.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. go after something worth while like getting the supression off of electric cars. They are capable of much higher acceleration and similar top speeds.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. I drive a Prius. It's most efficient speed on highway is 107. But from a safety points of view, I would hate to drive on 401 at 130 with the truck traffic it has.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      14 Disagreed
    5. You are quite WRONG!!! The slower the speed limits, the more stop/go situations are created!! Thus RAISING the limits will ultimately SAVE FUEL.

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    6. Gilles.

      Do you drive in the far right lane? Or do you drive in what ever lane you choose?

      But more to the point. Your car is not most efficient at 100km/h or 62mph. Most cars are most efficient at 78km/h due to aerodynamics.

      But your Prius is a city car. It can do highway speeds but economy will suffer. Where as MY car is ok... at 100km/h(cruise control) but much better at 120km/h and that has been proven on 400km trips of constant driving.

      Now remember you are no longer of the 85th percentile. So be smart and use the correct lane and stay in the far right.

      1 year ago
      10 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  32. The Autobahn RECOMMENDED speed is 130km/h. for proper enforcement I would even accept bringing back photo radar with this change.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    8 Disagreed
  33. I think that 130 km/h is a more appropriate speed on the highway. The speed on highway in entire Europe 130 km/h.

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  34. This is not California. I dread to think what mayhem will ensue if we raise the speed limit on major highways. Our winters are dreadful. Our snow is a sure thing. Our population is aging. Far too many young people already die on our highways. I dread to think of the dangers my children and now my grandchildren face whenever they drive. Please do not let this happen.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    23 Disagreed
    1. learn how to drive in the snow if you want to live in canada. Drivers with less experience should stay in the slow lanes while capable individuals with winter tires can get where they are going without being dumbed down by society.

      1 year ago
      15 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. I also feel that if you dont like canadian winters to either get a different winter vehicle or brush up on your driving skills. People need to drive to conditions. As you might be aware its sunny and beautiful in southern ontario for 8 months of the year. Especially in niagara falls. Why do we have to drive as slow as someone on a wintery cliff road in north eastern ontario. Straight long highways that go for miles should be 130 minimum. I understand some roads are windy and more dangerous depending ont he conditions so people should treat driving with respect. If limits were reasonable then more people would obey them.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. tell the car companies to make better cars like in the 80's with bumpers and real metal. Even with the little tin can cars we have today 130 is still very safe.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    4. "everybody think of the children"

      You sound like a bad soap opera actor. get a clue man. If you're scared to drive in the snow, move to somewhere it doesn't snow, or just stay home.

      1 year ago
      9 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. O.K.

      well spelled out buddy. Our tax dollars pay for public transportation. USE it if you cant afford winter tires.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  35. Using Europe as comparison is absurd. It takes me 2.5 hrs to drive to Sudbury from Manitoulin Island. From London I could get to Edinburgh in Scotland in 2.5 hrs, i.e. the whole length of the UK. Give me a break with this nonsense.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    20 Disagreed
    1. canada is a large country with the slowest speed limits on the planet. Bump them up! If you dont like driving fast keep in the slow lane and let other use the roads that they pay taxes into.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. speeds are simply way to low. If you dont want to drive that fast stay in the slow lane and let others use the road like its supposed to be used.

      1 year ago
      13 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. Joseph - driving involves judging conditions; the posted number is SUPPOSED to indicate BEST conditions, NOT your must drive speed! If you can't judge... don't drive - - keep out of the way of the able drivers!!!

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  36. Driving faster increases energy use, resulting in more of our wealth being flushed out of Ontario. It also increases emissions, when climate change is the number one threat to the economy and society. So no.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    17 Disagreed
    1. if these things were a real issue we would have electric cars. Its not about the planet its about the dollar staying in the wrong hands. If you dont want to spend the $ going faster the answer for you is to simply drive slower and save the 20$ a year. If it means that much to you. The rest of us want to use our vehicles and roads for what they are built for.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. I disagree. If your worried about the extra cash that much then I just feel sorry for you.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. The MAX speed limit is just that, the MAX. You are allowed to drive slower, thats what the far right lane is for.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  37. Haivmg artificially low limtes (ie 100 kph on open 400 series highways) fosters total disrespect for the law. Most people will drive at dspeeds that are safe and realizistic for the conditions. You wil, I will, msot others will. Some won't but they won't regardless of the conditions. Make limits realistic and there will be more respect for the law.

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  38. Well I hate to say it but my vote is for sale as are most peoples vote. If a party has a good idea then people vote for them, if it's a bad idea like raising taxes then people vote else where. Raising speeds to 130 good idea. Raising taxes bad idea. Driving faster = more gas = more tax. You put it together. Burn more fuel pay more tax. Use the extra tax to improve transit. What part of this does not make sense. Oh and the Prius guy. Sorry man, if the big trucks scare you that are speed restricted to 110kph then the high way may not be your best option. No person should put them selfs in a situation that makes them nervous and makes them feel unsafe. Just my two cense.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  39. I drove through New Brunswick a few months ago and where we have an 80 zone they have a 100 zone. Where we have 100 they have 110. It's ridiculous how low the speed limits are in Ontario and instead of going up they keep going down.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  40. Roads are actually designed to be driven on at a specific speed. Raising the speed limit arbitrarily could very well push it to a place that is beyond what it is designed to be driven at. Raising speed limits isn't as simple as just changing signs.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    13 Disagreed
    1. C K Idea Submitter

      If you do some research, you will find that our current speed limit of 100 kmh is nothing BUT ARBITRARY! There is no science behind it and it dates back to Feb 1 1976 (down from 112 kmh).

      Our roads (and drivers) are as good as anywhere else on the planet and they currently flow at anywhere from 110 to 140 with a very low fatality rate.

      1 year ago
      15 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
  41. we are not allowed to go over 100 but it is OK to eat, do makeup, trim nails, etc... by the way Rogers is about to get our car online???? having wi fi in the car for what???

    1 year ago
    3 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  42. A fair portion of our 400 series highways are unsafe at 140. I mean non accommodating surfaces for high speed travel.Poor marking and signage,inadequate lighting at night.We have no special lanes and speed for large trucks heavily enforced.I did not pull this out of my head because there are places that are far ahead of us in this respect.They invested extensively over time and are now with "the times" If you don't believe me drive yourself across Europe a few times.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. get glasses and some adrenalin. Hyperfocus is something alot of us have allowing us to travel at 250-280 km/h at least you normal folks should be able to handle 120... come on.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  43. To all these people saying no thank you, I'm guessing your the one in a hundred doing 98kms/h in the left lane? Give your head a shake. 120kms/h is the normal so why not make it legal. Our roads were designed for these speeds. Sorry to break it to you all but your slow speeds are statically proven to be much more unsafe then me going 120-130. Do some research.

    1 year ago
    10 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. References please.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      5 Disagreed
    2. i agree completely. Driving 750-900 km per day for my current job I can guarantee you that it is the slow drivers that dont pay attention that contribute to accidents. Its not very often the passing traffic that is causing congestion and filthy roads. The references can be the entire country standing up and telling the government we are not satisfied with the speed limits. Instead of depending on some numbers that are artificially calculated behind closed curtains like many of the other statistics available to the public that we so sheepishly believe. References my ***

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. we dont need references smart ass, open your eyes. :)

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  44. My worry is that if this were done, people would routinely be driving at 150 and 160 which would most definitely be a recipe for blood on the highways.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    10 Disagreed
    1. C K Idea Submitter

      1. Insane. How can you assume people will drive 20-30 over the new limit, based on what science, research or evidence? If the limit was 200 kmh, would drivers do 220? If the limit was 250, they would do 270?

      2. Let me ask you a philosophical question. If the speed limits were unlimited, like it is in Germany, how do you calculate 20 kmh over unlimited? Do they drive Infinity + 20 kmh? What exactly is it, sorry, my math skills are poor.

      1 year ago
      11 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. people want to drive 120-130 km/h on the highways and not 150-160 km/h. You are using the number 100 as a reference point which you should not be doing. 100 is a number and the variance of speed travelled on the highway have nothing to do with the number but rather the comfort of the roads and surroundings, weather, integrity of the road, traffic, where the sun is shining ect.

      Highway traffic travels well at 120 km/h and better at 130-135 km/h. I've traveled about 685 000 km in my day and I can tell you that for a fact. Its not until you get an excited cop to block off the trafic at 100km/h or an uneducated driver in the fast lane going 103 km/h that you get bottle necking and congested roads.

      Instead of giving the police an extra 3% funding out of the federal budget how about you work to improve society and offer driving programs for people. Instead of watching us with helicopters and photo radar while we are driving 120km/h.

      Our tax money is paying for this B.S. ? seriously ? and we are ok with this ????

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  45. 130 kph has been well established as a safe speed in much of the world. All that is needed is adequate driver education. In Ontario a great number of drivers are able to a licence without driver training and testing.

    1 year ago
    9 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  46. I don't believe raising the speed limit is a good idea. Yes, I am aware that many drivers already go 120-130 but that doesn't mean the speed limit should be raised. I laugh at how many of these comments say "no one goes the speed limit" then disagree that drivers will go over the new 120-130 posted limits. Once everyone gets used the higher limits they will start going 140-150, guaranteed. Especially the young and idiotic drivers with no experience who also believe they are invincible.

    People are also complaining about the drivers who have a hard time going 100 or who drive just over 100. These drivers will continue driving on the 400 series and will either 1) continue driving around 100 because they clearly already think that is fast enough or 2) barely go 120-130 and you will continue having a problem with these drivers.

    People need to start learning to drive according to weather and road conditions before I ever approve of this idea. Too many drivers believe they need to continue doing the speed limit (or higher) and when these drivers travel at even higher speeds in these conditions the results will be even worse.

    At night I don't feel safe driving at excessively high speeds due to horrible visibility thanks to inadequate lighting. I grew up in the country and am completely aware of how hard it is to stop for large animals/other vehicles while traveling at high speeds.

    I have also noticed a lot of commenters saying these higher speeds will be no problem as long as there is adequate driving education provided. Which one of you is going to pay for all of this? Clearly you believe that this training is necessary for driving at these speeds to be safe but no one is going to voluntarily pay (or repay) for drivers education. I paid enough the first time around and certainly will not retake drivers education (even if it's free) to be taught how to safely travel at excessively high speeds.

    No, I do not drive the posted speed limit. If the speed limits do get increased I am positive that there will be a petition immediately following the first fatality (especially if they mention speeding was involved) to have the 400 series go back to 100.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    11 Disagreed
    1. C K Idea Submitter

      "Once everyone gets used the higher limits they will start going 140-150, guaranteed"

      Another expert in predictions... OK, here we go again:

      1. How can you assume people will drive 20-30 over the new limit, based on what science, research or evidence? If the limit was 200 kmh, would drivers do 220? If the limit was 250, they would do 270? At which point do you start seeing the silliness of this argument?

      2. Let me ask you a philosophical question. If the speed limits were unlimited, like it is in Germany, how do you calculate 20 kmh over unlimited? Do they drive Infinity + 20 kmh? What exactly is it, sorry, my math skills are poor.

      3. Say there is .0001% likelihood that you are right, for the argument's sake: please tell us based on what science would you assume that drivers going 140-150 would immediately crash. Would they not crash at 130 but they would at 140? Or is it 137 or 138? Or maybe look at the German autobahn (which we are NOT suggesting for Ontario). Have you seen their fatality rate? It's essentially the same as Ontario's (Germans have some of the safest highways in the world!)

      Forget opinion, emotion and hearsay, stay with science, facts and evidence!

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    2. C K Idea Submitter

      Also, as to your last point, accidents WILL happen no matter what speed, speed limit and no matter how harsh the enforcement. So you are dead wrong about a petition to reduce the speed limit "after a first fatality". The US had a national speed limit of 55mph (88 kmh) on their world-class interstates (ironically designed for at least 75mph) and people still died. Bad drivers will cause accidents even at 70 or 80 kmh.

      I have yet to hear of ANY JURISDICTION ON THE PLANET, which raised speed limits and then dropped them back down to the initial number (and that number was below 120 km/h!). This has never happened before! Enough opinions!

      1 year ago
      12 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. You might want to do some correct research and not base it off opinion. As there is science backing up stop "100"

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. mr a.ryde

      i feel that either your writing with regards to the best interest of the police or the insurance companies. If your worried about the cost of teaching drivers how to drive maybe you should question the 2.5 million dollars of our tax money used to transport politicians loved ones or the fellow by the name of mr. crisp who intends to make it mandatory for all of canadians to learn and practice a 54 syllable language for drivers to use with their car horns. I feel that if your going to ask these questions you should do more homework and understand that we just want to drive to work without being pestered by the authorities which we also pay for with our hard earned taxed dollars. Police should be working to fight real crimes instead of bothering innocent people under a corrupt law.

      raise the speed limits !!

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. Quote taken from aryde..

      "Clearly you believe that this training is necessary for driving at these speeds to be safe but no one is going to voluntarily pay (or repay) for drivers education. I paid enough the first time around and certainly will not retake drivers education (even if it's free) to be taught how to safely travel at excessively high speeds."

      my opinion...

      1) people in europe pay alot of money to learn how to drive. If 300 is alot of money then driving isnt for you.

      2) id like to know more details with regards to your reference of excessively high speeds. If you feel 120 is excessively high speeds then you should hand in your car keys and ill give you the phone number to a great electric wheel chair company. Ill even locate one in your area so you can take the bus to pick it up.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    6. i completely agree with Jonothan!!

      If americans can safely drive 130 so can WE !!!

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    7. Chris bring up a good point. Why would we petition to bring down the speed limits. We need move forward. Why are we trying to make things more difficult for people by keeping these insanely low speeds?? I dont understand why the majority of people are punished for a minorities stupidity. It reminds me of being 12 years old and being punished and limited in my abilities for my less wise siblings.

      " man dies from triple by pass surgery failure... result was too many cheeseburgers/ servings of bread..."

      do you really think the country is going to stop mcdonalds from producing cheeseburgers and adding bread to their sandwiches ? The answer is obvious.

      "child chokes on paydoe"....

      that's it no kids are allowed to have paydoe...

      People die from kitchen knife stabbings... does this mean it should be illegal to have a butter knife in by kitchen drawer?

      People will abuse everything imaginable. 130km/h speed limits is nothing to worry about ... how about 80 mph does this number make you more comfortable...?

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    8. sd

      As far as I can see people already drive according road conditions and if you drive past Toronto on 400, 401 or QEW you'll see that when conditions allow it people are doing 120 with no problems at all. Note that there's no special education required to drive that fast. I don't see why our rulers can't make it legal so drivers look mostly on the road and not at the shoulders : ) If you don't feel comfortable with this speed you can drive 100 as long as you stay in the right lane. Idiots will be around anyway, they will do 200 regardless of speed limit, we get OPP for those people.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  47. Raising the speed limit reduces crashes.

    1 year ago
    14 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. this video is very well made. Gets the point across very well. Nice work.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. haha Well said Bud!!

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  48. Looks like Premier Wynne has already rejected the idea of increasing the speed limits. While I think going to 130 is a "little" on the rich side, there should not be a problem with 110. Maybe it is a "cost" factor rather than a "public safety issue"?http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10599205

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  49. I recently lived in Europe for 3 years and most recently spent time in Spain.. the 4 lane highways are at 130km and the two lane are 100km.

    Virtually no one that I witnessed exceeded the limit to any great degree as it is a safe, comfortable and efficient speed to drive at. 'Left lane' behaviour is excellent over there as well. Their cars are actually smaller than here and seem less safe overall, yet it did not present a problem and they moved a huge volume of traffic very well, much better than here. Police radar traps are almost non-existent from what I could see as with these limits, almost no one went far over them... they where allowed to drive! What they did ticket aggressively though was hogging the left lane and passing on the right... the police over there spend their time going after real crime, a novelty over here.

    The Ontario limits are just a reflection of the 'Nannies' that run the government and another way of taxing us... they make no sense as they are far too slow.

    I would be very surprised if the liberals increased the limits in any meaningful way as it goes against their grain of controlling everyone... protecting us from ourselves mentality. Maybe the conservatives will have the guts to make things right?

    Even if the liberals increased the limits, it would be incremental and likely come with a steep increase in fines as they are attached to taxing us at every opportunity.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  50. Theoretically, increasing speed limit from 100 to 130 would be an equivalent of having 30% more highways. Also, it will decrease, and may be eliminate the congestion. As a result my trip from Hamilton to Toronto may take 40 min instead of 110 min as was the case a couple of days ago. Its 110/40 = 2.75 times faster. Time IS money. Perhaps when we lose ours, they make theirs

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  51. Im not sure if everyone is aware of the bailout our government has issued to General Motors at the end of 2012. It was prevalent in the news and touched many families here in Canada. Prime minister Harper was sent in to clean up the mess by issuing GM a bailout with our tax dollars and in order for the company to maintain themselves and push their way out of another bankruptcy scare he said they need to target the luxury car market.

    In order to understand where I am coming from, analyse the difference between a low end car, we can use a pontiac sunfire or dodge neon for an example and compare it to a corvette z06 or porsche cayman type s. You don't have to be a car genuis or piston head to understand that corvette and porsche are known for something....

    speed. Along with greater handling, better workmanship, longer life and overall better driving experience. If you have never driven a porsche I recommend you just try one because once you do you would quickly realize that 100 km/h is reachable in 2nd gear of 6 first of all and that your car is a waste to own and operate with such a low speed limit being enforced so seriously. Speeds of over 150 mph are easily reachable and safely operated at. I am not condoning these speeds here, but I am saying that our economy will never grow with such limits on your freedoms. Why would someone with a perfectly working sunfire or toyota camery want to go out of their way and purchase any sort of sports car if the speed limits tell us its illegal to own them. If you want people to strive for excellence and want these types of vehicles, any logic series of thoughts would tell you the customer would have to have a need for the items to purchase them.

    I know luxury cars come with bells and wistles, leather, air conditioning in the seats, quiter ride yaaada yaada.. but every single luxury car has balls under the hood and is meant to press your head back into the seat.

    need/ want for luxury cars = reasonable speed limits = growing canadian economy = hope for our kids

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  52. f g

    Enough with the propaganda and misleading stats about saving lives by keeping speed limits on the highways artificially low.

    Its's about time that this becomes a reality.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  53. sd

    I've been in Germany on a vacation and after 2hd day there I found that 160 km/h is comfortable speed when road condition and traffic allows it. So I find 120-130km/h quite a safe speed, maybe it should be lower in urban zones or during construction, most of the people drive 120 anyway, even in right lane when road/traffic condition allow it. I'm surprised that none of the political parties made increasing speed limit a part of election campaign, I think this issue is obvious for most of the people and could get a big boost in a party support - just look at this site : )

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  54. This topic should be a non topic. When the general public votes with their right foot and travel along doing 115-120 safely on the 400 series highways, why do people argue we are being dangerous? Reading above how did premier Wynne just right this topic off? Do Liberals right off anything they like $650+ Million of our tax dollars for non starting power plant issues....

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  55. Totally signed petition for this. Its about time

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  56. They should be ticketing people who don't move out of the passing lane, rather than safe drivers doing 120km/h...raising the speed limits isn't necessarily going to help fully until we get the bad drivers in this province in check first...the flow of traffic is so dangerous because people are forced to weave in and out of traffic to get around people crawling in the "Passing lane"

    I am all in favor of raising the speed limits but vote for this one as well because these two go hand in hand IMHO

    http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Don-t-drive-in-the-left-lane-except-to-pass/16627-25935

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  57. For what its worth?? I sent a copy of this site (emailed) address to the conservative party leader and my M.P.P. in the hope that they would actually do the right thing and raise the 4 lane highways to 130 and the 2 lane highways to 100.

    Just to pour salt on the wound, I was recently speaking with someone at a township office who informed me that the cost of the OPP have been downloaded to the townships and the budgets are negotiated every year, including a plan for the number/value of tickets issued. He said 'we all know its not about safety' but its about money.. also said he could not go public or lose his job.. anyway, this is what he told me.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. It seems we have stumbled upon a well weaved political issue once again.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  58. Im not sure who would be interested in checking out a B.C. man working to do the same thing. Id like for us to communicate with other organizations.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/30/brian-hutchinson-canadas-low-speed-limits-are-creating-accidents-b-c-activist-argues/

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  59. I have a lot of admiration for all of you here who have voted to increase the speed limits on our provincial highways.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  60. Shared and urged to all my friends, family members and co-workers to sign for the petition. Liberals! Please Don't disappoint us.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  61. Time for reality. Set the limit to the speed drivers actually drive the 400s now --- which certainly exceeds the limit --- and then enforce it. Right now if you drive the at the existing limit in busy traffic you are often a hazard to all the other drivers who are whipping along well over the limit.

    1 year ago
    4 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. New York State has a 65 mph interstate limit, which corresponds to about 104 kmph. The State Police stringent enforce that limit, and will consistently issue tickets for as little as 5 mph or 8 kmph over the limit. As a result most traffic on NY interstates travel very close to the limit.

      If the OPP was to start enforcing in a similarly stringent manner, Ontario drivers would quickly slow down to the speed limit and any hazards due to traffic speed differential between those doing the limit and those grossly in excess of it would be mostly eliminated.

      That's what we should be lobbying for - consistent and close enforcement of the existing speed limits.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    2. C K Idea Submitter

      Cesari, why not ask a question: where did the current limit come from? WHY should we obey it (based on WHAT SCIENCE or STUDY or a popular consensus)? Do some research and ask yourself: would you obey a dumbest law, just because it is a law? What if most police officers also thought that law was insane and "looked the other way"? Would you not think that maybe it is the LAW that is wrong, not everybody else? Lastly, I will make it very easy for you: if you could spent 4 hours getting somewhere instead of 5, which one would you choose?

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. Ask a different question. What is New York's highway safety rating compared to the other states and to Ontario. Dig into the numbers and you will find that New York is in the top 3 US states for highway safety in both fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled and in fatalities per 100,000 residents, and enjoys a highway safety record very similar to Ontario's. The only ones better are Massachusetts with interstate highway speed limits of 55 and 65 mph (same as New York) and Washington DC.

      Your introduction to this poll makes note of Utah and their 80 mph speed limit. What you failed to mention was until just 4 weeks ago, the 80 mph limit applied to only a very few of the already safest sections of their interstate system, with a distance totalling just 84 miles. Utah has only recently (3 weeks ago) expanded the 80 mph limit to an additional 289 miles of interstate, but not in areas of higher population density. Much of southern Ontario would be considered high population density by Utah standards.

      The cops aren't really looking the other way. They are just waiting for the bigger fish which are sure to come along. If we had the same police presence on our highways that New York State has on their interstates, we would have the necessary police manpower to more strictly enforce the speed limit, and the result of lower average traffic speeds would be lower crash forces when crashes do happen which in turn would tend to reduce highway fatalities.

      You ask whether I would choose to spend 4 hours getting somewhere instead of 5? Sure, who wouldn't, but at what cost? Let's make it even better and reduce that to 1 hour. Either way I would be inflicting additional risk on all other traffic around me just so "I" can save a bit of time.

      Take it a different way. How many people on the highways make 4 or 5 hour long trips? I would say mostly big transport trucks. The 401 is one of the most heavily-used transport truck corridors in North America. They would benefit from higher speeds on the highway, but what does that mean for the family of four in a little econobox running alongside all those trucks also running at 130?

      Most people's average daily commutes along the 400 series highways are relatively short commutes. They usually occur during peak traffic periods when traffic congestion often has the highways down to slow and even stop and go traffic. This happens all across the top of the GTA. It happens around Cambridge, Kitchener, London, entering Windsor, and again along Kingston, Belleville, Cornwall. It happens going north out of the city, and again anywhere near Barrie.

      When you're already down to a crawl in those areas, how much time do you think you're going to save by being able to open up to 130 kmph in the limited highway space that remains? And when you do, will you be ready for the sudden stop when you hit the next area of congestion? Will that big transport be able to do so?

      All I see is greater potential for the massive chain reaction crashes and multiple fatalities that already plague the German Autobahn. Then everyone is held up for hours while they clean that up. For what? Scant minutes saved in a morning commute that can be counted on one's fingers, assuming of course that crashes caused by impatient drivers don't plug things up even more than they do now?

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      5 Disagreed
    4. C K Idea Submitter

      Cesari, once again: WRONG. You have incorrect/false data. NY rural interstates are actually not nearly as safe as you claim! The state of NY ranked #39 (out of 50 states) in 2009! I hope you agree that that is a pretty bad record - despite their equally ridiculous interstate speed limit to ours (104 kmh). When you take both rural and urban interstates into account, the record is one again rather sad: #23 (out of 50).

      So, NO, their low speed limit is NOT helping their ranking at all. In fact, there are plenty of faster states (112 kmh and 120 kmh) that have a LOWER rural interstate fatality rate than NY. Sorry, that argument did not work for you either.

      http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/fi30.cfm

      As I said before, there is only one truth, so I would keep that in mind next time you try. Our demands to legalize our speeds are backed by science and facts.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  62. These are good points, but what about the fact that fuel economy is adversely affected? We should be encouraging policies that favor travel in other ways besides cars.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    6 Disagreed
    1. sd

      My car gets the best fuel economy at 90 km/h and then 130 km/h. That's should be two speed I drive to hit the maximum fuel economy. I guess it's more of less true for other vehicles as well. As per travel in other ways - you probably are talking about commuting, but lots of people use their vehicles not only for commuting, but for ssome other needs like going places on weekends or vacations for example etc. We are talking here about highway speeds not about transportation in general, electric vehicles are slowly coming into play, buses use highways and so on.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  63. Let’s drive the speed limit for one day each month and see how slow things get.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  64. Watch this ...

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  65. Safer cars does not mean safer OR smarter drivers.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  66. In today's (Friday) National Post, Driving Section, David Booth has written a great and supportive article relative to speed limits.

    One particular telling point is that 72% of all moving violations in Ontario are speeding (so cops are not ticketing left lane hogs etc.) and that 755,148 drivers were convicted of speeding in 2010.. a whopping 68% increase. And so guess what, people have not all suddenly become speed demons, its actually a reflection of it becoming a liberal tax machine.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  67. If the limit is 120, people will drive 140, so no I disagree with this. People will exploit this. Everyone at times drive over the speed limit so this is very unsafe speeds. Fuel economy is secondary to public safety.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    5 Disagreed
    1. C K Idea Submitter

      If you seem to know exactly what will happen and how fast everyone will drive, please kindly tell us the following:

      How fast will people drive in the following speed zones?

      a) 100 km/h

      b) 110 km/h

      c) 120 km/h (I guess we already know that, you said 140 km/h, ok... let's keep going)

      d) 130 km/h

      e) 135 km/h

      f) no speed limit at all (like in Germany)

      Looking forward to your predictions! Thanks!

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Mr. Csesari,

      Your data is very misleading. I feel that blatent dishonest information being portrayed as a defense for a money making tool should be illegal more so than driving at a safe limit.

      if the OPP continue to push their luck everyone will move away from Canada and contribute to a country that will not suck the life out of them. For a better economy you need happier civilians. People are not happy being treated as if we have downsyndrome. Which is how you made me feel reading your political agenda and mixed worded illigitimacies that you have put before us.

      By no means have you fooled me with your fake statistics and I feel strongly the rest of Canada agrees with me.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  68. The intro makes reference to Utah's 80 mph limit.

    The Utah Department of Public Safety makes explicit mention of those stretches on their web page at http://publicsafety.utah.gov/highwaysafety/speeding.html , to wit, "For every 10 MPH (16 kmph) over 50 MPH (80 kmph), the risk of death in a crash is doubled. That might be something to think about when you're driving on those 80 MPH sections of the 15."

    The graphics on the page say it all. http://publicsafety.utah.gov/highwaysafety/images/Speedgraph_001.JPG

    http://publicsafety.utah.gov/highwaysafety/images/Consequences_000.jpg

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. C K Idea Submitter

      Cesari, once again you are wrong. In fact, it is silly how you're cherry-picking "facts" to make your case, yet your own sources completely destroy your hypothesis.

      This link which you have brought up clearly shows that those faster 80 mph highways see less fatalities than some slower roads with travel speeds of 60-70 mph.

      Let me help you understand this: divided freeways ARE THE SAFEST roads ever invented. "Simple physics" does not apply on them in the same way that it does on MUCH MORE DANGEROUS and slower city and secondary (undivided) roads. This is a fact confirmed by our own Canadian data as well: http://stop100.ca/poster-speeddoesnotkill.jpg

      Additionally, here are more FACTS (not cherry-picked arguments) and I quote: "(UTAH) Results from three year tests (on faster 80 mph roads) show no fatalities, accident increases. Studies found that average speeds there increased only by 2 mph — from 83 to 85 mph. Accidents actually decreased in one test zone by 11 percent, and by 20 percent in the other. No speed-related fatalities have occurred in either area during the test.

      There also was a 20 percent reduction in drivers exceeding the speed limit, UDOT Deputy Director Carlos Braceras told the Legislature’s Transportation Interim Committee. He said the higher limit essentially just legalized how fast drivers were already traveling.

      With such results, Braceras told legislators that his agency is taking steps to make the higher speed limits permanent in those sections within a few months." Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54927666-90/areas-higher-limits-mph.html.csp

      So no matter how hard you try to convince anyone here to your beliefs, they are plain wrong. Let me give you a last final "nail in the coffin" argument. If speed on those magnificent multi-lane, divided road was as deadly as you are desperately trying to paint it, then how do you explain the fact that Germany, despite having many freeways with no speed limit AT ALL, are essentially comparable in safety to our own 400-series limited at the ridiculous 100 km/h (and are some of the safest highways in the world)? In science, it takes ONLY ONE EXPERIMENT to disprove a hypothesis, so if I can provide at least ONE country with a higher speed limit than ours, that has a comparable or lower fatality rate to ours, then your argument is completely defeated and you should move on to trolling some other forums. Here it is: look up Switzerland motorway fatality rate. Switzerland has a speed limit of 120 kmh, has mountains, and has winters. Your seemingly well-researched arguments hold no water, my friend. The truth is only one, so no matter how hard you try, you will not win this. Sorry.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  69. C K Idea Submitter

    Cesari, once again you are wrong. In fact, it is silly how you're cherry-picking "facts" to make your case, yet your own sources completely destroy your hypothesis.

    This link which you have brought up clearly shows that those faster 80 mph highways see less fatalities than some slower roads with travel speeds of 60-70 mph.

    Let me help you understand this: divided freeways ARE THE SAFEST roads ever invented. "Simple physics" does not apply on them in the same way that it does on MUCH MORE DANGEROUS and slower city and secondary (undivided) roads. This is a fact confirmed by our own Canadian data as well: http://stop100.ca/poster-speeddoesnotkill.jpg

    Additionally, here are more FACTS (not cherry-picked arguments) and I quote: "(UTAH) Results from three year tests (on faster 80 mph roads) show no fatalities, accident increases. Studies found that average speeds there increased only by 2 mph — from 83 to 85 mph. Accidents actually decreased in one test zone by 11 percent, and by 20 percent in the other. No speed-related fatalities have occurred in either area during the test.

    There also was a 20 percent reduction in drivers exceeding the speed limit, UDOT Deputy Director Carlos Braceras told the Legislature’s Transportation Interim Committee. He said the higher limit essentially just legalized how fast drivers were already traveling.

    With such results, Braceras told legislators that his agency is taking steps to make the higher speed limits permanent in those sections within a few months." Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54927666-90/areas-higher-limits-mph.html.csp

    So no matter how hard you try to convince anyone here to your beliefs, they are plain wrong. Let me give you a last final "nail in the coffin" argument. If speed on those magnificent multi-lane, divided road was as deadly as you are desperately trying to paint it, then how do you explain the fact that Germany, despite having many freeways with no speed limit AT ALL, are essentially comparable in safety to our own 400-series limited at the ridiculous 100 km/h (and are some of the safest highways in the world)? In science, it takes ONLY ONE EXPERIMENT to disprove a hypothesis, so if I can provide at least ONE country with a higher speed limit than ours, that has a comparable or lower fatality rate to ours, then your argument is completely defeated and you should move on to trolling some other forums. Here it is: look up Switzerland motorway fatality rate. Switzerland has a speed limit of 120 kmh, has mountains, and has winters. Your seemingly well-researched arguments hold no water, my friend. The truth is only one, so no matter how hard you try, you will not win this. Sorry.

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Divided highways are the safest, but crashes still happen on them. Crash physics applies on multilane limited access highways just as much as anywhere else.

      Your increase from 100 kmph to say 130 kpm means 30% greater distance travelled in the time that you perceive a hazard ahead of you and the time it takes for you to process that hazard and then actually react to it. Your own vehicle's momentum at that higher speed will make it harder for you to take evasive steering and on top of that it means a 70% increase in braking distance required to come to a stop if you can't steer around a hazard. It also corresponds to a 70% increase in crash impact forces when those accidents do happen.

      As Utah's own public safety department publishes - "Speed increases the severity of crashes. For every 10 MPH over 50 MPH, the risk of

      death in a crash is doubled."

      See the graph at http://publicsafety.utah.gov/highwaysafety/images/Speedgraph_001.JPG and see how typical crashes at 80 mph turn out compared to crashes at 60 mph. Crashes in the 60 to 69 mph range represent about 21% of all fatal crashes but account for about 29% of all crash fatalities. That sounds bad, but crashes in the 80 to 89 mph range, though representing only 2 or 3% of all fatal crashes account for almost 15% of all crash fatalities.

      A small number of crashes result in a disproportionately high number opf fatalities at higher speeds. That is simple physics at work even in absence of increased crash frequency.

      If that new 130 speed limits is also applicable to big transports, that is an awful lot of heavy-weight hurt headed your way when things do go bad.

      If the new 130 speed limit does not apply to the big trucks, now you have a built in 30 kmph speed differential, and we all know that speed differentials are a prime component of multi-vehicle crashes.

      Going back to Utah, the government there did cherry pick the sections of highway to test the new limit on. They choose relatively lightly-travelled highway sections that already enjoyed the lowest crash rates in the system. Crash frequency did go down, but Utah has enjoyed a steady down-trend in crash fatality rates for several years running right across their system as a whole. See http://publicsafety.utah.gov/highwaysafety/documents/2012FatalCrashSummary-3.pdf

      You mention science and it supposedly taking only ONE experiment to prove a hypothesis? That is simplistic at best. ONE limited small-sample experimental test case means little, especially if it has not been successfully repeated on a larger, more general scale.

      Utah is about to start repeating that 80 mph limited scale experiment across a wider stretch of highways, and that is where we will see more tangible evidence, or not, after several years.

      In the meantime, the applicability of Utah's experience is still limited when it comes to southern Ontario's highways. Utah is primarily rural with low population and traffic density when compared to southern Ontario. Southern Ontario has some of the busiest highways in North America. If you;re going to compare apples, you need to find other apples as a basis of comparison.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    2. C K Idea Submitter

      You're starting to mix stuff up... I said: In science, it takes ONLY ONE EXPERIMENT to disprove a hypothesis (not to prove one). You didn't read it right. Utah is just one example, I can provide more countries that experienced the same or similar effect (I didn't list them all in the description of our cause).

      Also, now you're accusing the state of Utah of conspiracy? Funny!

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    3. You mention the Autobahn as being comparable to Ontario's 400 series highways in terms of safety?

      The Autobahn had a fatality rate of about 2.7 per 1 billion vehicle kilometers travelled in 2009.

      Ontario's overall highway fatality rate in 2009 was 4.3 fatalities per billion vehicle km travelled, but that figure applies to all of Ontario streets and highways.

      As per a 2012 study examining risk of death on the 400 series highways vs other types of roads. the corresponding fatality rate for the most of the 400 series highways is between 20 and 25% of that 4.3 all-streets and highways figure, so say a fatality rate of .86 to 1.07 per billion vehicle km driven on Ontario's 400-series highways.

      That rate is well under half the fatality rate found on the Autobahn. For you to say that the Autobahn fatality rate is comparable to that of Ontario's 400 series highways is more than a little off.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      5 Disagreed
    4. C K Idea Submitter

      Pick on specific words all day if you want to, but at the same time don't make statistics up (your quote: "so say a fatality rate..."). I am working with whatever data is available (Ontario is many years behind) and in 2006 the Autobahn had 2.8 fpbvkm vs Ontario's 1.9. Fatality rates fluctuate year-to-year and some of the recent stats for the Autobahn suggest their fatality rate is currently at 2 fpbvkm. Both highway systems are in the top 10 in the world when it comes to safety (however, we are NOT advocating for unlimited speeds here in Ontario just to be clear).

      Additionally, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark had speed limits of 120-130 kmh in 2006 and lower fatality rate than Ontario, so once again your hypothesis that a higher speed limit equals more deaths is simply false (as proven by FACTS).

      The data from the USA confirms the same: state fatality rates do not correlate to the posted speed limits (but rather to AADT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_average_daily_traffic ), ie. some faster states have less road deaths (rate) than some states with lower speed limits, thus once again disproving your theory.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    5. Now you are mixing facts and conclusions up.

      I gave 2009 stats for Ontario as publiched by the ORSAR reports, and the Autobahn stats as available to compare like years. Vehicle design continues to progress, but the result of that is downward pressure on highway fatalities both here and there.

      You claim year to year fluctuations and that the current Autobahn fatality rate is "only" 2 dead per billion vehicle km driven? Sure, no problem, but that is still twice Ontario's rate for 2009, and Ontario's fatality rates have also continued to decrease since 2009.

      SOME states with faster speed limits DO have lower fatality rates than SOME states with lower speed limits. That end result is not the result of a given speed limit in either of the comparison states, but the result of a blend of localized factors such as highway topographies, vehicle mix, traffic densities, population densities and urbanization, seat belt use, levels of impaired driving, vehicle inspection and driver licensing standards, and the prevalence of speed enforcement.

      You mention the Netherlands? The result there has been attributed to significantly greater police presence on the highways enforcing the new speed limits together with increased traffic levels that by themselves work to keep speeds down as a result of congestion. Also, other locales in Europe have gone the route of decreasing speed limits. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/FS_speed.pdf

      In the United States overall, the states with the lowest highway fatality rates are those with lower speed limits. Crashes are going to happen. Driver error and mechanical failure leading to crashes don't magically go away when you raise or lower speed limits.

      What does vary significantly with speed are the crash forces that the vehicle and human body have to absorb when the crashes inevitably happen. That is what leads to more highways fatalities.

      You say speed doesn't kill. By itself no, it doesn't. Increasing speeds make it increasingly difficult to recover from mechanical failure and/or a driving mistake on your part or that of another driver. That causes increased potential for a crash that with increased speeds puts exponentially increasing crash forces on the vehicle and the human bodies inside that vehicle.

      If apply take the Utah Public Safety Departments very own warning to Ontario speed limits - you are more than twice as likely to die in a crash at 100 kmph than you are at 80, and twice as likely to die at 116kmph than you are at 100, and twice again as likely to die at 132 kmph than you are at 116.

      Again part is due to the physics of increased crash forces, and part is due to decreased ability to avoid the unexpected that may happen in front of you when travelling at ever increasing speeds.

      This is consistent with the experience on the Autobahn. In 2006, 52% of the Autobahn had no speed limit but accounted for 67% of all fatal crashes on the Autobahn. See the European Transport Safety Council fact sheet at http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Speed%20Fact%20Sheet%201.pdf

      From the same source - *** "The Power Model: while the risk linked to speed varies from road types to road type, an empirically verified model shows that on average, a modest percentage reduction in the mean speed of traffic will lead to a twofold percentage reduction in injury accidents, a threefold percentage reduction in injury accidents and a fourfold percentage reduction in fatal accidents (Aarts and van Schagen 2006, based on Nilsson 1982).

      So, for example, a 1% reduction in mean speeds on a given road leads to a 2% reduction in injury accidents, a 3% reduction in serious injury accidents and a 4% reduction in deaths. It follows from the high risk associated with speed that reductions in driving speeds (even apparently minor ones) will make an important contribution to reducing the number and improving the outcome of road accidents." ***

      The same source quotes the following safety studies conducted by the German government agencies responsible for highway safety -

      ***"the Federal environment agency mentions further field trials that have shown reductions in road deaths and injuries: in one field trail in the Land of Hesse from November 1984 to May 1987, the speed was limited at 100km/h on some motorways, bringing down the number of accidents with deaths or injuries per billion vehicle kilometer by 25% to 50%. A field trial on the Autobahn A2 during 1992 and 1994 also showed a 50% decrease of the accident rate per billion vehicle kilometer (Umweltbundesamt, 1999).

      The road safety impacts of speed limits were evaluated in 1984 by the Federal Highway Research Institute. The study estimated that a general limit of 120 km/h on the Autobahn network would lead to a 20% reduction of road deaths, a limit of 100 km/h even to a 37% reduction. ***

      It's hard to argue with that sort of data coming from a place that already has had high or no speed limits in place for decades. Higher speeds tend to correlate to more highway fatalities. This a factor of inherent limits to human thought processing and reaction abilities, driving skills, and the physics of crash forces at increasing speeds.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      6 Disagreed
    6. C K Idea Submitter

      Once again Cesari, the facts on the ground vs theories that you bring up don't add up when it comes to divided freeways. Nobody says we want unlimited speeds here in Ontario. Germany was only brought up to make a point that even roads with no speed limit at all can make the top 10 safest highways in the world, despite what the special interests want us to think. You and I both know this - if what they say was true and applicable to divided freeways, ie. with each percent in speed limit increase, there will be x more causalities on the roads, wouldn't Germany be a slaughterhouse rather than being in the top 10 in the world (and having a fatality rate of 2 bvhkm)? And at no time did I say "only" to be clear.

      Also, wouldn't countries with ridiculously low speed limits ALWAYS beat those with higher ones when it comes to safety? It just doesn't add up. I would also urge you to look up the 85th percentile theory if you would like to understand why a proper / scientific speed limit is safer than a low, arbitrary one that is not obeyed by anyone on the road.

      I have alluded to what the real answer is. Speed limit is a very minor factor when it comes to highway safety (divided highway to be exact). There are many other factors that significantly affect the fatality rate, some of them being: AADT, driving distances and proximity to emergency care centres, etc. This is why New England states see a very low fatality rate. It is COMPLETELY explained by science.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    7. That's what I told you - that there are factors other than just speed limit that contribute to fatality rates. In our Ontario situation, if all that changes is the speed limit and average traffic speeds even rise slightly, the net result over time will be increased fatalities.

      And by the way, it's not x% increase with each kmph or mph increase in speed limit. It is x% increase with each kmph or mph increase in individually-travelled speed.

      Tell you what - let's say we support an increase in the speed limit to 120 kmph, provided that it is accompanied by a strict 8 kmph enforcement threshold with increased fines for those who do speed plus maintaining the racing law at 50 kmph over or 150 kmph absolute, whichever comes first. Would that satisfy you, yes or no?

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
    8. C K Idea Submitter

      First you would have to tell us how you came up with these two completely arbitrary numbers:

      8 kmh over the limit

      150 kmh

      Remember - we've been dealing with a completely arbitrary speed limit (100 kmh) for four decades. Last thing we need is another two numbers based on nothing other than ... well, I don't know what they're based on.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      2 Disagreed
    9. Simple. You said you wanted a higher speed limit. A 120 kmph posted speed limit with a 8 kmph threshold gives you roughly what you are asking for in your petition. You claim that the average driver won't drive any faster even with that higher limit in place. If such is the case, then the ticketing points I suggest won't impact them one bit.

      What is the point of a speed limit if it not enforced?

      Your response suggests that what you're really saying is that you have no interest whatsoever in an enforced speed limit even at higher posted speeds than what is already posted on the 400 series highways. You just want to drive faster, period, and would use the higher limit as a springboard to create a higher defacto limit than already exists today.

      Game over.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
    10. C K Idea Submitter

      It may be game over for you, but not for us. We are still fighting for speed limits reflective of our current travel speeds and one that is in line with world-wide practices.

      Sadly, you are over-interpreting things. At no point did I say that there should be no enforcement. I've simply asked you where you came up with the arbitrary 8 kmph number. It is up to the police to decide how to enforce the new speed limits, not up to you or me or the politicians.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    11. Long-Term Effects of Repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States

      *** Objectives.

      We examined the long-term effects of the 1995 repeal of federal speed limit controls on road fatalities and injuries in fatal crashes.

      Methods.

      We used a Poisson mixed-regression model to assess changes in the number of fatalities and injuries in fatal crashes between 1995 and 2005 on rural interstates, where all US states have raised speed limits since the repeal, as well as on urban interstates and noninterstate roads, where many states have raised speed limits.

      Results.

      - We found a 3.2% increase in road fatalities attributable to the raised speed limits on all road types in the United States. The highest increases were on rural interstates (9.1%) and urban interstates (4.0%).

      - We estimated that 12,545 deaths (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8739, 16,352) and 36,583 injuries in fatal crashes (95% CI = 29,322, 43,844) were attributable to increases in speed limits across the United States.

      Conclusions.

      Reduced speed limits and improved enforcement with speed camera networks could immediately reduce speeds and save lives, in addition to reducing gas consumption, cutting emissions of air pollutants, saving valuable years of productivity, and reducing the cost of motor vehicle crashes. ***

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724439/

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
    12. C K Idea Submitter

      Oh please...

      According to that, our divided highways should be limited at 88 km/h (or less!) with strict photo radar enforcement! I wonder how many votes that would receive in our legislature.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    13. It's a long term study of before and after the raising of speed limits showing a rise in fatality rates. It flies in the face of what you claim.

      What it suggests is what is already known to those who have a focus on matters other than their right foot - with all other things remaining equal, higher highway travel speeds tend to lead to higher fatalities on the highways over the long term, despite improvements in vehicle safety design and medical trauma treatment during that same time.

      With regard to your comment in response to the US study, that Ontario should impose an 88 kmph speed limit on the 400 series highway, every speed limit is a compromise between providing efficient travel and maintaining a safe travel environment. There is a broad spectrum of what is considered "safe", but within that spectrum is more safe and less safe. Eventually "less safe" becomes equivalent to "dangerous".

      Slower IS generally "more safe" when a crash occurs, faster IS generally "less safe" when a crash occurs, and crashes will continue to occur as long as there are humans and human error factoring into the driving equation. Physics, remember?

      Ontario governments over the years have deemed that the current speed limits on our 400 series highways are a reasonable compromise between the highway safety needs and the travel efficiency wants of most Ontario drivers. Other governments, especially those who don't have to pay medical costs of crashes out of the public purse, may have a different idea of what constitutes a reasonable trade-off between the efficiency/safety/cost factors of different speed limits.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
    14. C K Idea Submitter

      Cesari,

      For once you've said something that I actually agree with: "every speed limit is a compromise between providing efficient travel and maintaining a safe travel environment."

      To this I will add that our roads do not flow at 90-95-100 kmh as suggested by the speed limit signs, but when not congested, the traffic moves at roughly 115-130 kmh on open, straight stretches of road.

      This suggests only one thing: that that "compromise" you have correctly brought up IS NOT based on drivers cruising around 100 kmh as the law would suggest, but 120+ kmh! (we are driving at those speeds just like the majority of drivers worldwide and anybody in their sound mind will agree that our 'unofficial' speed limit has been 120 kmh for years!) This, mind you, creates very safe roads as we both know. Hence, it is plain wrong that those doing 120-130 kmh (ie. a vast MAJORITY of us) are doing so illegally and paying the price in ticket fines and unnecessary stress - for no reason at all! Hope you finally understand the purpose of this campaign. Next time you drive on an open road, look at your own speedometer. I am rather certain that the needle will exceed 100 kmh... by 10, 15 or 20 kmh or maybe even more. Then, finally understand that we are on your side. You are likely driving illegally according to the current rules and should be charged! Remember, according to the OPP and most justices of peace, "even 1 kmh over the posted speed limit is considered speeding".

      1 year ago
      8 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    15. Most people I know who drive at 110, 115, 120 say they do so because they are relatively safe from getting a ticket at those speeds. If the speed limit was higher with the same ticket threshold, they would drive faster by their own admission. Ergo, higher speed limits tends to cause upward creep in actualk travel speeds.

      I wouldn't support any change in speed limits unless the ticketing threshold was tightened up significantly. Politicians can demand that police allocated resources to do just that.

      They should, just as has been done in New York State. You don't see a whole lot of Ontario-style speeding there even though cars, climate and highways are very similar. The difference is due to differences in enforcement. Time for me to write another letter to my MPP and the heads of the political parties demanding exactly that.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
    16. C K Idea Submitter

      Unbelievable! I think we are actually in agreement! You said: "I wouldn't support any change in speed limits unless the ticketing threshold was tightened up significantly."

      I agree that the tolerance could be reduced! As stated on www.stop100.ca I also do not believe that a situation in which the tolerance ranges from 20 to 30 kmh over the limit is healthy for anyone! (But at the same time the OPP are our silent heroes for doing so to allow comfortable, safe and efficient highways speeds to take place). Please see:

      I would be perfectly fine with a more predictable ~10 km/h tolerance in the new 120 and 130 kmh zones. I would personally be OK if those doing ~140 received a citation (or those doing 130 in the 120 zones). That would be very much in line with worldwide practices, so we would feel no different from anyone, yet we'd be free from fear of the police and our highways would flow that much more smoothly.

      I am glad we can put this thread to the rest, although I am always glad to discuss. It would be awesome if you could join our forces and demand reasonable speed limits on our roads! Thanks for the debate. This is exactly what the Liberals should do if they wanted to side with the driving public - sit down with an open mind, analyze our current driving speeds and look at worldwide practices and viable options to improve our traffic flow and stop unfair citations and insurance rate hikes.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  70. You should consider just driving in the right lane or maybe city only if you are that uncomfortable driving at speeds that much of the rest of the world live with.. safely. I have spent a few years driving in Europe and the roads actually feel safer to me due to their disciplined driving.

    The last thing we need are higher fines or the implementation of the racing law.. Chris and his research along with common sense is pretty clear. Any competent driver would be safe at 130 on 4 lane and 100 on 2 lane.. its actually the left lane hogs and slow pokes and not signalling for lane changes that cause traffic chaos.

    1 year ago
    6 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
  71. The speed limit should be decreased NOT INCREASED!! As the speed limit is increased the number of deaths increases. As car speed increases the amount of gas used increases dramatically at those speeds. Pollution also increases dramatically with speed.

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    9 Disagreed
    1. you are incredibly incorrect. The gearing in many vehicles in this day and age allow for lower rpm at higher speed. Also stop and go traffic creates ALOT more pollution than a steady 130 km/h.

      Stop trying to use safety and environment to enslave us. Ride a bike if you dont like traveling at a safe speed on the highways.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. I think you should move to another country. Were trying to get a decent civilization together in canada. I drive 100 km down a 35 km dirt road everyday with no issues. Why cant I drive 120 on a paved surface?

      If you cant handle safe operating speeds on the highway aka 120-150 then you need to stop driving. Im sick and tired of being held down by incompetent members of our immigrated society. If you cant handle snow and rain then stay home and let the rest of the world continue to revolve, as our socialist ideals help to keep you alive with assistance programs and government incentives anyways.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
  72. sd

    If majority of the people already drives 120-130 it should be legal. We live in democracy after all and laws should reflect the needs of majority. Just get out and take a drive on any 400 series highway not in rush hour - you'll see what I'm talking about. Those people who can't drive over 100 should either use right lane on highways or drive around highways, there are lots of nice country roads where people could comfortable drive 80-100 km/h.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. That's like saying if the majority of the public cheats on their taxes or uses a cell phone while driving it should be legal.

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      8 Disagreed
    2. What this clearly states is that if the majority of the people in a democratic society agree or disagree on something, the people that represent and call themselves a government are being paid by our dollar to listen to us. In our society law is supposed to be an agreement between the government and civilians on a particular topic. In the case of speed limits in Canada everyone breaks these limits on a daily basis. Police, doctors, judges, politicians ect. They are just keeping quiet because of the industry it creates for them. Its an unfortunate reality however if we consider ourselves democratic, that means the people have spoken.

      1 year ago
      6 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. first off I see police using their cell phones all the time. So why am I not allowed to use mine.... money grab. Second of all lets keep on the topic that the velocity traveled on the highways in this country is FAR to low and NEEDS to be increased !

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  73. sd

    If you want to talk about cell phones or taxes you could submit your idea. Let's talk about drivers and speed limits here.

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  74. Dirk Emde Merged

    Before 1973 Ontario speed limits were 100kph on two lane roads and 120 kph on divided highways. The federal government under Trudeau reduced them to 80 kph and 100 kph to conserve fuel, promising to restore them when the oil crisis was over. As with many liberal promises, it was never kept. It is now time to restore the old limits as cars are safer than ever.

    1 year ago
    12 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
    1. Back in the 70s when cars were basic death traps, speed limits on Ontario roads were 100kph and 120 kph. Now that cars have more airbags than parliament, they are still only 80 kph and 100 kph. They were never reduced for safety sake, but nevertheless, it's high time we raised them to previous levels.

      1 year ago
      5 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. Jon

      So true, we need to do this

      1 year ago
      4 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    3. 1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
      1. Well, it's sort of the same, but ALL speed limits should be increased on highways to at least what they used to be. Higher would be better, but lets start somewhere.

        1 year ago
    4. 100km on an undivided highway does seem a bit fast. I support 50% of this proposal. And I'd be good with 90km. May seem arbitrary (and yes--you're likely dead either way) but a little less may save your life. I've seen far too many cowboys driving like lunatics on all the 80km country roads.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      7 Disagreed
    5. After 40 years of 80 it may seem fast, but back when cars had terrible suspensions, no airbags and brakes that hardly worked when hot, (drums) it was 100.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  75. C K Idea Submitter

    If you really want to get ticked off at your wonderful Liberal government which doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with the 100 km/h speed limit, look at this image. What planet do you think they live on?

    http://stop100.ca/worldweb.jpg

    1 year ago
    7 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. some people reply better to pictures perhaps we should allow the general population and the government to experience a more pictorial understanding of 120 km/h... if you follow me..

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    2. like littering the streets, malls and government buildings with 120 km signs ?! Im in !!

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  76. Chris,

    Great image regarding the speed signs...

    Actually, I believe the Liberals live on 'planet road tax/nanny state".

    1 year ago
    5 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  77. First, at 130kph or for the ones exceeding the speed limit, at 140-150kph, on a hot summer day, on burning hot asphalt, tires are not designed for that speed and may self destruct, causing accidents. In Canada, in the winter, ice does buid up on roads, often unexpectantly. At high speed (130-140-150kph), terrific accidents are bound to happen. Just think of semis going at that speed, and crashing onto other traffic, at higher speed.....

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    9 Disagreed
    1. You are incorrect. Speed rated tires for most family vehicles are rated at or above 180 km/h and temperatures that are well above the operating temperature of the tire at these speed. I am not sure where you get your information from but you most definately should do some sort of research before you try and tell the populous that our tires are unsafe. At the University level I have taken courses directly related to rubber composition and industrial craftsmanship within the bio technology field. At the molecular level I can guarantee you that the tire will hold just fine at 120 km and 140 km/h. The temperature difference between the operating speeds are so minute that the tire would explode at 120 just as easily as 140. But dont take my word for it, go out to your car now and you can see most likely an r t v or w speed rating on the side wall. You can then match that up to an industry standard for each letter and a speed in miles and km/h.

      I am honestly astonished someone would take this route to keep us with illegally low speed limits......I'm speechless.

      1 year ago
      7 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    2. harringtonsare....

      go to another forum where stupidity and children are readily available at your expense!

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      1 Disagreed
    3. sd

      I suggest that you check your tires speed rating, or check out any tire store and see what is the minimal speed rating for available tires - what else I can say. When road condition is slippery people normally drive well under current limit - probably you notice that traffic goes very slow during snow storms or when roads are slippery.

      1 year ago
      3 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    4. winter tires are essential at or below +10 degreed Celsius, something not everyone knows. It is a bad idea and an illegal one to have all seasons on your vehicle when operating in winter conditions or between Nov and end of April.

      If everyone knew this kind of thing and operated on these facts I think our speed limits could be raised with much less controversy.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
    5. sorry... I cant edit my post, its is illegal in Quebec.

      1 year ago
      0 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  78. We have cars travelling at the speed limit or below in the left lane, we have trucks clogging the middle lanes because they won't drive in the right lane due to merging traffic, we have most drivers unaware of how to merge properly onto highways, we have drivers totally unaware of how to "zipper" properly and we still have many drivers distracted by phones, etc.....so yes great idea to increase speed limit!!!!

    1 year ago
    2 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
  79. While I agree the idea proposed initially had some merit, after reading the posts by people advocating this change, I find myself unwilling to vote in favour of it.

    A dialogue shouldn't include disparaging remarks against people who have a different point of view than you do. For an idea to go ahead it should be discussed in a calm, non-ego manner regarding benefits versus drawbacks.

    Some of the commentators sound as if they paid the full cost of the infrastructure and if their ideas are the only ones that count. A good idea doesn't rely on elitist and entitled comments, it should stand on its own.

    1 year ago
    1 Agreed
    4 Disagreed
    1. The ideas that these infrastructure elitists portray are in a calm manner and very politely represented. I can assume some people would be mildly upset when they are treated like children behind the wheel with best regards given to the police and the courts. We do not need to be babied or punished for driving 120 km/h, which is a safe and easy speed to reach even for asian soccer mom. I know where your coming from by saying that we all share the roads and we need to discuss the matter humanly. However, some individuals understand how this system works much better than others and are tired of being punished and dumbed down for the rest of society. I am comfortable driving at 130-140 even in snow and ice, if the roads were used properly left middle and right hand lanes, the roads would be much more organized. Ontario roads are a disaster with regards to improper lane use. Signalling and using proper lane eticute is by far the matter we need to address. A speed of 130km should have been done in the 80's when the oil embargo finished, just like taxes should have been abolished after the war.

      1 year ago
      2 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  80. Slow down man enjoy the scenery I get it in a hurry to go home and see the wife and screaming kids I get that.But in a hurry to get to work and listen to the screaming boss Nah

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    1 Disagreed
    1. sd

      In my opinion the only purpose of 400-series highways is to get somewhere fast. There's no much scenery around 400s. If I'm not in a hurry and want to enjoy my drive I would take backroads : )

      1 year ago
      1 Agreed
      0 Disagreed
  81. I'm surprised we don't have 1000 people in all of ontario to vote yes on this matter. Does anyone know 33 more folks ?

    1 year ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  82. We have drivers in the left lane driving below the speed limit; we have trucks driving in the middle lane at below the speed limit; we have many drivers unsure of how to merge into traffic from an entry ramp; and many people unsure of how to merge using the "zipper" technique. In addition we have many distracted drivers still using phones. testing, etc. and we are suggesting increasing the speed limit...please no. Let's focus on improving the driving skills of all drivers, once that is done, then and only then, can we look at increasing the speed limit.

    11 months ago
    0 Agreed
    2 Disagreed
  83. I'm alright with increasing the speed limit where it makes sense, but only if tolerance for infraction is decreased. Set the speed limit on 400-series to 120, undivided to 95 where local conditions permit, and then make infractions of 5km/h over the limit enforcable by fine, 10km/h by demerit.

    11 months ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Events Show