dont speed in canada

[codougd]

"I'm talking about how stupid it is for a 65mph speed limit to be enforced in the middle of nowhere and you two are saying it's necessary for safety in traffic."

 

Speed limits are about more than just traffic. Properly established limits are also about the road conditions. And, yes, there are some of us who could safely negotiate that off-camber, decreasing radius turn at 85mph. Most can't.

 

Speed limits are a compromise. I used to race in SCCA. Even with aging reflexes and rusty skills, I can probably get down most roads faster than 95% of the driving public. However, there isn't one speed limit for aging racers and another for average motorists. I can live with that.

 

"Do you obey every speed limit even when there's nobody else around in the middle of nowhere?"

 

Yes, actually.

 

"Do you obey every traffic law when you are on your pedal bike?"

 

Yes as well.

 

"BTW, you find that proof correlating traffic law enforcement with increased safety yet?"

 

That is a very good question. I have seen studies that showed that "problem" roads (ones with very high accident/fatality rates) had much lower accident/fatality rates when the traffic laws were rigorously enforced. I'll try to dig those up.

[Fugu]

the fact that, as you note, "it is not uncommon" to be passed in traffic by folks going 20 or 30 over does not make it safe or right. We'll have to disagree on this one.

 

Jeez. I already said +20 in traffic might be irresponsible. It depends on the situation - if traffic's doing +15, it doesn't really matter. That's the point. The number limit is stupid because there are also times where that speed is too fast.

 

I think the measure of a person's character is whether or not they obey the law when no one is looking.

That's a fine yardstick to measure a golfer (as a golfer) with. A bit over simplified for a person's character, and telling that you say simply "the law"- no qualification at all. Traffic ordinances are on par with thou shalt not kill now I guess. There are a ton of important people in the history of the world who by your yardstick lack character.

 

I suppose this is another one of your posts where you mean no insult, though, right? You've already decided that I lack character having never met me, but I shouldn't be insulted by your determination?

[SageRider]

Time for me to chime in (and Fugu, I am replying to your post simply because it is convenient. Nothing here aimed at anyone personally...)

 

"SPEED" is a factor in every collision that involves at least one moving vehicle. If there is no moving vehicle, then there is no collision. It does not matter what the actual speed is when an collision occurs. In all cases, the speed is "too fast for conditions". This is what makes speed limits largely irrelevant.

 

When one claims that they are being endangered by others "speeding", they are ignoring the fact that if they are moving, they are part of the problem and also endangering all others on the road. If they do not wish to be endangered, then park it.

 

Ever notice how speed limit laws are one of the few laws (but getting more so all the time) that criminalize someone for doing absolutely nothing that harms anyone or anything? It is enough now to have the potential to cause harm.

Seems to me that speed limits should be advisory only, and based on science such as the road design, traffic density, external factors (school children, wildlife, etc.).

Collisions or accidents should have very high penalties, possibly to include mandatory incarceration even for minor fender benders. Criminalize someone when there is a reason to do so. Not just the potential (Jeesh, Orwell's thought police are HERE!)

[Fugu]

Speed limits are about more than just traffic. Properly established limits are also about the road conditions.

 

Then why don't they vary with those conditions?

 

Speed limits are a compromise. ... I can live with that.

 

Good for you. I don't want to, and as long as it doesn't impact you, I will continue to break them. Not just willingly, but gleefully.

 

 

"Do you obey every speed limit even when there's nobody else around in the middle of nowhere?"

 

Yes, actually.

 

At least you aren't a hypocrite.

 

 

I'll try to dig those up.

I'll be at the bar waiting.

 

BTW, "problem roads" is not what I'm talking about when I break speed limits either, but it would be interesting to at least see something correlating traffic enforcement with an actual improvement in safety not just as easily explained by other factors like safer cars or reduced traffic.

[russell_bynum]

I think the measure of a person's character is whether or not they obey the law when no one is looking.

 

In that case, I'd be pretty low on your character scale. About the only time I even think "Is this legal?" is when I think there might be a LEO watching.

[codougd]

the fact that, as you note, "it is not uncommon" to be passed in traffic by folks going 20 or 30 over does not make it safe or right. We'll have to disagree on this one.

 

Jeez. I already said +20 in traffic might be irresponsible. It depends on the situation - if traffic's doing +15, it doesn't really matter. That's the point. The number limit is stupid because there are also times where that speed is too fast.

 

I think the measure of a person's character is whether or not they obey the law when no one is looking.

That's a fine yardstick to measure a golfer (as a golfer) with. A bit over simplified for a person's character, and telling that you say simply "the law"- no qualification at all. Traffic ordinances are on par with thou shalt not kill now I guess. There are a ton of important people in the history of the world who by your yardstick lack character.

 

I suppose this is another one of your posts where you mean no insult, though, right? You've already decided that I lack character having never met me, but I shouldn't be insulted by your determination?

 

Fair enough, I should have said "one measure".

 

I never said you lack character. I do have a very black and white view of ethical behavior. If my standards insult you, I guess you'll just have to be insulted.

[velomoto]

Laws requiring and enforcing safe driving (such as basic speed laws) may be about promoting safety. Absolute, arbitrary speed limit laws are in place because they're objective, easy to enforce, and easier and cheaper to prosecute. Speed laws are about the perception of safety, not actual safety. They use speed as a proxy for "unsafe."

While we could argue forever on your assumption that the limits are arbitrary, the one important point about having limits that you missed is that traffic moving at a constant speed is safer than when there is a significant difference in the speed of vehicles. If you don't believe this I'd be more than happy to have you ride along with me on a return trip from the ski resorts when the roads are icy... Not a problem until someone has to slam on the brakes and then it's like a pinball game, but with really large not-so-round objects going every which way. Sure under better driving conditions there's more margin for error, but given higher driving speeds we see the same results.

 

Perhaps if all vehicles were safe at high speeds, the roads didn't have hazards such as large debris which has fallen off other vehicles or exploded tire shreds, and if drivers were trained and paid attention to what they were doing and would follow all the laws (instead of arbitrarily ignoring the ones they didn't like) then the limits could be raised. But lets be realistic here,

-Many vehicles have difficulty maintaining 65 mph and are unable to safely accelerate into a a fast moving stream of traffic

-Merge lanes are too short for many vehicles to reach speeds above 65 mph

-Tractor trailer retreads come apart at 75 mph on hot days and higher speeds will only exacerbate this and leave more debris on highways

-SUV/pickup/car tires are more prone to failure as speed and temperature increases. How far do you want to push the margin of safety?

-People have no idea how to secure down loads in pickups and leave an amazing array of trash (smashed stuff) on the highways. Higher speeds means more wind which will only increase the amount of stuff coming your way.

-Some people will ignore the law if they feel the lay denies their "freedom to pursue happiness" in the form of talking on the cell phone (or any of a long list of other stuff) while they drive. Higher speeds means reduced margin of error.

So where does one set the limit:

-Base it on the lowest common denominator?

-Use what has been used elsewhere?

-Get an engineering analysis?

-Any one of other options or a combination?

 

Regardless of how the limit is determined, there will be those who will always regard it as arbitrary because they have not been involved in the decision process. I deal with this all the time with specifications at work. The spec's may seem arbitrary but in fact there actually reasons why they ended up the way they did. I'm not saying they're always GOOD reasons, but there are reasons. BTW these arbitrary spec's are certainly inside what you're using to read this thread.

[smiller]

I think the measure of a person's character is whether or not they obey the law when no one is looking.

 

In that case, I'd be pretty low on your character scale.

I'll be having a party at my place in Hell. You and Fugu are welcome to drop by if you like.

[russell_bynum]

Almost everything you listed as reasons for arbitrary speed limits could just be covered by saying "drive/ride at a speed appropriate for the conditions."

 

If I'm in the middle of nowhere and there are no merge lanes, I can see that there's no slow traffic, I can see road debris in plenty of time to react, etc...then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that I could cruise at a higher speed and still maintain an appropriate margin.

 

Speed limits are do not take into consideration the current conditions. Do you sometimes decrease your speed to something below the speed limit when it's rainy/foggy/etc? If so, then you're just adjusting your speed to meet the conditions. Why is it not valid to do the same thing (except with increased speed) when the conditions are more ideal?

 

SUV/pickup/car tires are more prone to failure as speed and temperature increases. How far do you want to push the margin of safety?

 

Tires have a speed rating. I figure that as long as my tires are properly inflated and in good condition, I'm not terribly likely to experience a heat/speed-related tire failure. No?

 

Regardless of how the limit is determined, there will be those who will always regard it as arbitrary because they have not been involved in the decision process. I deal with this all the time with specifications at work. The spec's may seem arbitrary but in fact there actually reasons why they ended up the way they did. I'm not saying they're always GOOD reasons, but there are reasons.

 

To me, the biggest thing that determines what speed I drive/ride (other than the suspected presence of LEO's) is the current conditions. Speed limits do not take current conditions into account.

 

You're right...they're not entirely arbitrary, but since they ignore the thing that should be the most important factor, they might as well be.

[codougd]

 

"When one claims that they are being endangered by others "speeding", they are ignoring the fact that if they are moving, they are part of the problem and also endangering all others on the road. If they do not wish to be endangered, then park it."

 

Nonsense. By this standard, anyone who does not agree with your belief in road anarchy should just get out of your way.

 

"Ever notice how speed limit laws are one of the few laws (but getting more so all the time) that criminalize someone for doing absolutely nothing that harms anyone or anything? It is enough now to have the potential to cause harm."

 

I disagree with your argument (and others) that you are doing no harm. Ever hear of "reckless endangerment?"

 

"Seems to me that speed limits should be advisory only, and based on science such as the road design, traffic density, external factors (school children, wildlife, etc.).

Collisions or accidents should have very high penalties, possibly to include mandatory incarceration even for minor fender benders. Criminalize someone when there is a reason to do so. Not just the potential (Jeesh, Orwell's thought police are HERE!)"

 

I don't care about what you think: I do care about what you do if it affects me. Are you suggesting that we wait until some yahoo blasts through a construction zone and kills some folks before someone slows him down? In your scenario, who decides what is safe for the conditions? You? The other folks on the road? That would really lead to some drastic differences in speed and that is demonstrably dangerous. Do you disagree that it is more the difference in speed between vehicles not the absolute speed (up to some point) that causes the greatest danger? This is probably the most potent argument for speed limits. They do have some effect on the speed differentials. Most folks drive at least within shouting distance of the limit.

 

And here is my final point and then I think it is time to call a halt to this. Whether or not we employ your suggestion of "advisory" speed limits or just choose our own speed regardless of the posted limit, who decides? You? Me? With respect, I trust the traffic engineers a lot more than you or me.

[velomoto]

This is exactly what I teach my kids... "Children, laws that you don't like are only for the little people"

 

Your children don't have the judgement of an adult (I'm not sure you do, either). I really hope you are not raising them to believe that laws = right with no exceptions.

Considering your statement and the fact you've never met my children this speaks volumes to your sense of reason and logic.

[velomoto]

Speed limits are do not take into consideration the current conditions. Do you sometimes decrease your speed to something below the speed limit when it's rainy/foggy/etc? If so, then you're just adjusting your speed to meet the conditions. Why is it not valid to do the same thing (except with increased speed) when the conditions are more ideal?

In theory, or perhaps by definition, a "limit" is the maximum. Thus the speed should be adjusted lower for adverse conditions. They do give out tickets for driving "too fast for conditions" in snowy weather even if the driver was under the posted "limit". I agree it would be great if the limit could be adjusted per conditions, but I expect cost, the time to identify changing conditions and make changes, and legal liability are all reasons the current system has not been changed.

 

SUV/pickup/car tires are more prone to failure as speed and temperature increases. How far do you want to push the margin of safety?

 

Tires have a speed rating. I figure that as long as my tires are properly inflated and in good condition, I'm not terribly likely to experience a heat/speed-related tire failure. No?

You're absolutely correct, but what to do about the pickup cruising at 90 mph just ahead of you... Yeah, the overloaded one with under inflated tires which were improperly manufactured in China?

[russell_bynum]

Do you disagree that it is more the difference in speed between vehicles not the absolute speed (up to some point) that causes the greatest danger? This is probably the most potent argument for speed limits.

 

I agree with that...Which makes it even more hilarious that California has trucks and vehicles with trailers plodding along at 55mph while everyone else is going 70mph. Real safe.

 

Back to the topic at hand...it's about what is appropriate for the conditions. It isn't appropriate to be going 100mph when there's lots of other traffic, and they're all going 30mph.

 

But....when there's no traffic, it might be perfectly fine to go 100mph.

 

It goes both ways, too. Personally...I don't feel comfortable going the speed limit in my neighborhood most of the time, so I go slower.

[Boffin]

In theory, or perhaps by definition, a "limit" is the maximum. Thus the speed should be adjusted lower for adverse conditions. They do give out tickets for driving "too fast for conditions" in snowy weather even if the driver was under the posted "limit". I agree it would be great if the limit could be adjusted per conditions, but I expect cost, the time to identify changing conditions and make changes, and legal liability are all reasons the current system has not been changed.

 

[

 

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

BUT, many and varied studies have shown that the safest speed to drive on any given road is the speed equal to the 85th percentile speed and that is a scientific method of setting limits. Any other method is, by definition, arbitrary.

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

I agree it would be great if the limit could be adjusted per conditions, but I expect cost, the time to identify changing conditions and make changes, and legal liability are all reasons the current system has not been changed.

 

 

So...what you're saying is that it's too difficult to set speed limits based on meaningful criteria, so we just set them arbitrarily since that's easier?

 

Good...at last we agree.

 

 

 

 

You're absolutely correct, but what to do about the pickup cruising at 90 mph just ahead of you... Yeah, the overloaded one with under inflated tires which were improperly manufactured in China?

 

Does the answer change if he's going 70mph?

[russell_bynum]

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

How is the driving public notified of the change from dry to wet speed limit?

[SageRider]

"Nonsense. By this standard, anyone who does not agree with your belief in road anarchy should just get out of your way."

 

Nonsense right back at you. If your vehicle is moving, it is capable of causing a collision. If your vehicle is capable of causing a collision, then it (and you) are endangering me.

 

 

"I disagree with your argument (and others) that you are doing no harm. Ever hear of "reckless endangerment?""

 

"Reckless endangerment" and speed are not the same thing.

 

 

"Are you suggesting that we wait until some yahoo blasts through a construction zone and kills some folks before someone slows him down?"

If your vehicle is moving it is capable of "killing some folks in a construction zone". Should we penalize you now just because your vehicle (and by association, you) has the potential to harm?

 

 

"In your scenario, who decides what is safe for the conditions?"

As stated above, "science". Today that means traffic studies performed by traffic engineers (not politicians). The limits are advisory, but based on physics rather than politics. Since these limits must be based on the worse case scenario, then it is entirely safe for certain vehicles to exceed these advisory limits.

 

"That would really lead to some drastic differences in speed"

Why? Define drastic. Your opinion of drastic? My opinion of drastic?

If advisory limits are based on real science, then most traffic will be close to the limit naturally.

 

"Do you disagree that it is more the difference in speed between vehicles not the absolute speed (up to some point) that causes the greatest danger? This is probably the most potent argument for speed limits. They do have some effect on the speed differentials. Most folks drive at least within shouting distance of the limit."

I disagree that speed limits have the effect you are proposing.

Absent of visible enforcement, traffic is much more likely to flow near the speed that physics, not politics, dictate.

 

"And here is my final point...."

Redundant.

[Boffin]

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

How is the driving public notified of the change from dry to wet speed limit?

 

The windscreen gets wet.

 

Andy

[SageRider]

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

How is the driving public notified of the change from dry to wet speed limit?

 

The windscreen gets wet.

 

Andy

[russell_bynum]

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

How is the driving public notified of the change from dry to wet speed limit?

 

The windscreen gets wet.

 

Andy

 

 

OK...so if it isn't actually raining right now, but the road is still wet from a previous rain...am I OK to go the normal speed limit?

[SageRider]

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

How is the driving public notified of the change from dry to wet speed limit?

 

The windscreen gets wet.

 

Andy

 

 

OK...so if it isn't actually raining right now, but the road is still wet from a previous rain...am I OK to go the normal speed limit?

Windshield is still wet from the spray...

[russell_bynum]

Windshield is still wet from the spray...

 

I'm the only car nearby, so there's no spray hitting my windscreen.

[Boffin]

In France, speed limits on the main roads are lowered by 20KPH when it is raining. It works there.

 

How is the driving public notified of the change from dry to wet speed limit?

 

The windscreen gets wet.

 

Andy

 

 

OK...so if it isn't actually raining right now, but the road is still wet from a previous rain...am I OK to go the normal speed limit?

 

The rule is the 130KPH (80MPH) limit is reduced to 110KPH (68MPH) when raining so yes, wet road ,no rain, speed limit is 130KPH.

 

Andy

[bakerzdosen]

To no one in general:

 

If you've read any of my previous posts, you'd probably know that I think that the German's have it mostly right: Fast on the Autobahn and REALLY slow in residential areas.

 

I also tend to feel that it's absurd to ask people to adhere to a 75mph speed limit for obscenely long and flat straight-away's where practically no one else is around for safety reasons. (Fuel economy is a different issue altogether. You can't argue physics with much success.)

 

However, one must also remember that the Autobahn (especially the sections where there are no speed limits) is the most heavily engineered and expensive piece of public roadway out there - bar none. That have sooo many rules about road construction, materials, incline, curve radii, upkeep etc. that there is no way that most (if any) of the interstate system in the USA could qualify for "no speed limits" in Germany. Why do you think fuel is so expensive in Germany?

 

Getting rid of speed limits in the USA (or Canada) would be a VERY expensive proposition for every section of road where it was considered if German standards were used. Raising them substantially (think 100mph) would probably require studies and improvements that I'm sure no one wants to pay for.

 

Our roads just aren't up to snuff. The highest design speed is typically (I'm sure it COULD be higher in places, I've just never seen a higher spec anywhere) 75mph or under.

 

Just a thought.

 

Another Autobahn "innovation:"

 

Over 3,200 km of Autobahn now feature dynamic speed limits which are adjusted to respond to traffic, weather, and road conditions. These speed limits and conditions are indicated using a rather elaborate system of electronic signs.

 

Read through the previous link if you want to see how I think things should be done - with one exception:

 

Anyone riding in a motorcycle must have a helmet on. The helment[sic] must remain on as long the motorcyclist is seen outside in public, whether or not the motorcycle is in use.

 

I wasn't actually aware of that one before reading it.

[tallman]

Replying to last post, not content or poster.

 

OK, somehow I look away for a bit and we're no longer in Canada?

We're getting rained on in France whilst wishing we were on the Autobahn, and getting driving advice from a Brit ( no offense intended Sir Andy)?

Too funny.

Face it. Many of us think we're better than average drivers/riders, capable of exceeding posted limits with impugnity, and will never suffer mechanical or equipment failure on our vehicle, or on the ones around us.

Weather doesn't really matter and if I get a speeding ticket it was due to the capricious whims of road designer, traffic engineers, and LEO's.

Yep, sounds like me.

[s3steve]

OK, somehow I look away for a bit and we're no longer in Canada?

We're getting rained on in France whilst wishing we were on the Autobahn, and getting driving advice from a Brit ( no offense intended Sir Andy)?

Too funny.

 

+1

[Fugu]

I'll be having a party at my place in Hell. You and Fugu are welcome to drop by if you like.

 

Excellent. We can roast up whatever I kill on the way over with my recklessly dangerous driving.

[jackflash]

I have been in many places where 120 mph on a bike is not endangering anybody but myself and possibly a hare or a couple hundred bugs. I should lose my bike because I enjoy going fast in the middle of nowhere sometimes? If there's a cop in an airplane and he / she catches me going really fast on a deserted stretch of road I do not agree that forfeiting my property is a reasonable penalty.

Well if you get your jollies going 100++ mph and don't want to be subject to the penalties, then find a nice track...

 

Your response, and that of others is probably along the same mind set of the people who make illegal u-turns across interstate medians. We've had several fatalities in CO which were caused by this - but the people who made the u-turn never seem to be the ones involved in the accident. These people may never know they caused the death of others.

 

Back to the Ontario laws, I was wondering how long it would be before the "it's all about the revenue" folks would chime in. I have yet to see anyone present any "real" facts, but this seems to be a religion so I suppose one should not expect this to be based on fact or reason.

 

Arbitrary speed limits? Perhaps they would seem to be from someone with no experience and who is an "outsider", but for traffic to be safe for the masses there must be some form of order which implies there must be rules. While one could argue tractor trailers, passenger cars, and motorcycles are sufficiently different they should have separate speed limits, however where do you draw the line? For example are high performance sports cars grouped with MC's, and where does an SUV towing a boat fit? Which laws apply to my 80+ year old relatives who drive really nice cars but who IMO really shouldn't even be on the road because they are confused so easily. My point? Someone needs to define the rules of the road and they need to be simple. Sure, the speed limits aren't perfect but who ever said they would be? Not sure about your area, but speed limits change out here as people complain to the appropriate state/county/city departments.

 

You like to argue.

[ghaverkamp]

You like to argue.

 

I hope that hasn't become a trait worthy of derision around here...

[steve404]

"...RCMP in BC is using unmarked Dodge minivans for speed enforcement."

 

What a terribly mean thing to do