Spoiler More Speed limit talk, you guys can keeps saying the speed limit change will kill people, but it just isn't an evidence backed claim, so the outrage is misplaced, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard on the left.
What we should be complaining that she's coming for our pension again. and in 25 years I could be trying to retire on O&G stocks (banking heavily on O&G stocks 25 years from now is a thought that exceeds my risk tolerance ).
She also wants to double down on big government and more bureaucracy adding additional layers of Administration in policing to our province.
I don't make enough money to thrive in the economy Smith is building, we need to stop her.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
In an effort to make this data more meaningful, I added a larger sample of countries and adjusted for km driven (given that life style and vehicle usage rates play a big role in these percapita numbers). the correlation between speed and risk doesn't really exist in this data set.
Country Deaths per 1 Billion km Max Speed Limit (km/h)
South Korea 17.5 110
Italy 7.8 130
Japan 7.6 120
Spain 7.6 120
United States 6.8 137 (85 mph)
Belgium 6.4 120
New Zealand 6.3 110
Austria 5.9 130
France 5.8 130
Canada 5.6 120
Australia 5.0 130
Finland 4.9 120
Germany 4.6 No limit
Netherlands 4.5 130
Switzerland 4.3 120
Denmark 3.9 130
Ireland 3.8 120
United Kingdom 3.5 113 (70 mph)
Sweden 3.4 110
Norway 3.1 110
Last edited by #-3; 12-23-2025 at 11:55 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I get your passion on this but here’s my issue - this is not how issues like this should be decided. Populism and internet polls are not how public safety measures should be determined. This is and engineering and risk management decision.
You have a strong opinion here and you’ve been able to back some of it up, but honestly it’s not definitive that it gets safer as you like to claim. Given our road design, traffic volumes and weather conditions I think there’s a chance you’re wrong, and for 10-15 minutes of saved time I don’t think it’s worth it.
The only stretch that it makes sense to me on is probably just north of Ponoka to just south of the weigh scales and that’s it.
Spoiler More Speed limit talk, you guys can keeps saying the speed limit change will kill people, but it just isn't an evidence backed claim, so the outrage is misplaced, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard on the left.
I do not see much outage. Just a healthy questioning attitude as people are not coming to the same conclusion or have different priorities.
Personally I do not see value in raising the speed limit or any rationale for making a speed limit change a high priority. I believe there is plenty of evidence that higher speeds result in more accidents and those high-speed accidents are far more horrific. There is no real gains to offset the increased risk or the increased impact when an incident occurs. (I also think that Alberta has more than enough irresponsible and reckless drivers that make the road unsafe as things are now and raising the speed limit will do nothing to make the situation better.)
If you want to say that the risk is small, that is fine, but (IMO) the value is still smaller. In Alberta, I think we could easily put together a list of 100 more important topics and issues that the government needs to make better (or stop making significantly worse).
Also, I guess I am confused why the insurance companies would put together a report that signals a speed limit increase is a bad idea. What do they have to gain from that? The only logical reason is that they know that speed increases harms their bottom line because it increases the number of insurance incidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
What we should be complaining that she's coming for our pension again. and in 25 years I could be trying to retire on O&G stocks (banking heavily on O&G stocks 25 years from now is a thought that exceeds my risk tolerance ).
She also wants to double down on big government and more bureaucracy adding additional layers of Administration in policing to our province.
I don't make enough money to thrive in the economy Smith is building, we need to stop her.
The libertarian demonstrates (again) that she was an authoritarian all along. Shocking.
Honestly, the recalls look like our best path to bring power back to the people. We desperately need that first recall to get enough signatures so we can send the message to government and make them collectively freak out. Hopefully it triggers an election and then we can shift our efforts from recalls to activating more votes for the NDP, or even the PTP. Whatever it takes to get the UCP out of government.
#-3 and I have made the technical case, the opposing viewpoint is making a moral one couched in the idea that uncertainty exists (as it does, sure) and that said uncertainty should bias us toward inaction. That's fine -- though I disagree -- but I feel like the discussion has hit the point where this isn't a disagreement about traffic engineering, it's a disagreement about risk tolerance and tradeoffs in establishing policy.
Neither of us are arguing that speed can't increase severity (in fact, pretty sure that's how physics works), or that infrastructure doesn't matter. But both of us are arguing that on the sort of highway we're talking about in normal conditions, misaligned speed limits increase variance and conflict, and the evidence on that is not only favourable but well-established and broadly accepted in traffic engineering. I say we should optimize for total harm reduction by reducing variance, while accepting that severity in crashes may rise slightly.
If the opposing position -- as it seems to be -- is that positive action leading to any potential increase in severe outcomes is unacceptable regardless of variance effects and that we should prioritize minimizing worst-case outcomes -- even if the resulting inaction increases conflict frequency and non-compliance -- then we're talking policy risk tolerance, because that position doesn't really square with how these problems are addressed practically. Reasonable people can land in different places there, philosophically.
But I do need to insist that the "10-15 minutes / convenience" rhetorical framing be put to bed. There is no 10-15 minutes to be gained here; for the millionth time, this is the speed most people are already traveling on this roadway. This is squarely about reducing speed differential which reduces the rate of traffic conflict.
#-3 and I have made the technical case, the opposing viewpoint is making a moral one couched in the idea that uncertainty exists (as it does, sure) and that said uncertainty should bias us toward inaction. That's fine -- though I disagree -- but I feel like the discussion has hit the point where this isn't a disagreement about traffic engineering, it's a disagreement about risk tolerance and tradeoffs in establishing policy.
Neither of us are arguing that speed can't increase severity (in fact, pretty sure that's how physics works), or that infrastructure doesn't matter. But both of us are arguing that on the sort of highway we're talking about in normal conditions, misaligned speed limits increase variance and conflict, and the evidence on that is not only favourable but well-established and broadly accepted in traffic engineering. I say we should optimize for total harm reduction by reducing variance, while accepting that severity in crashes may rise slightly.
If the opposing position -- as it seems to be -- is that positive action leading to any potential increase in severe outcomes is unacceptable regardless of variance effects and that we should prioritize minimizing worst-case outcomes -- even if the resulting inaction increases conflict frequency and non-compliance -- then we're talking policy risk tolerance, because that position doesn't really square with how these problems are addressed practically. Reasonable people can land in different places there, philosophically.
But I do need to insist that the "10-15 minutes / convenience" rhetorical framing be put to bed. There is no 10-15 minutes to be gained here; for the millionth time, this is the speed most people are already traveling on this roadway. This is squarely about reducing speed differential which reduces the rate of traffic conflict.
But what you are saying is that you definitely think then that top speeds will not increase and that differentials will narrow. I think there’s lots of reasons that may not be the case at all. So my framing of 10-15 minutes rhetorical stands.
And traffic engineering is inherently a conversation about risk and trade offs.
I have an itch for the schadenfreude I would experience by watching people/politicians from AB react after voting yes for separation. Like, did you read the plan? It's basically:
Step 1: Separate
Step 2: Bank on a whole bunch of favours from Canada and the US to allow the transition to an independent nation.
Step 3: .... there is no step 3 because Step 2 is not a thing.
But what you are saying is that you definitely think then that top speeds will not increase and that differentials will narrow. I think there’s lots of reasons that may not be the case at all. So my framing of 10-15 minutes rhetorical stands.
And traffic engineering is inherently a conversation about risk and trade offs.
Are you advocating for a 10km reduction in speed?
Every argument made for the status quo would support a reduction. Why is today’s number the Goldilocks number?
^ That's a silly, fallacious argument defeated elsewhere in the thread by #-3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whynotnow
But what you are saying is that you definitely think then that top speeds will not increase and that differentials will narrow. I think there’s lots of reasons that may not be the case at all. So my framing of 10-15 minutes rhetorical stands.
And traffic engineering is inherently a conversation about risk and trade offs.
"Definitely" -- no, I've never claimed certainty, only that the evidence:
- supports what #-3 and I have said on the subject with respect to reducing speed variance and vehicle conflict.
- does not support the time-savings framing because prevailing speeds already cluster near the proposed limit, nor does it support the assumed, broad behavioural changes upon which such framing hinges.
And yes, traffic engineering is about tradeoffs, which is exactly why reasonable people can disagree.
I have an itch for the schadenfreude I would experience by watching people/politicians from AB react after voting yes for separation. Like, did you read the plan? It's basically:
Step 1: Separate
Step 2: Bank on a whole bunch of favours from Canada and the US to allow the transition to an independent nation.
Step 3: .... there is no step 3 because Step 2 is not a thing.
At best you're becoming North Montana.
Maybe that is why we are talking about Montana speed limits so much?!?!?
^ That's a silly, fallacious argument."Definitely" -- no, I've never claimed certainty, only that the evidence:
- supports what #-3 and I have said on the subject with respect to reducing speed variance and vehicle conflict.
- does not support the time-savings framing because prevailing speeds already cluster near the proposed limit, nor does it support the assumed, broad behavioural changes upon which such framing hinges.
And yes, traffic engineering is about tradeoffs, which is exactly why reasonable people can disagree.
The question posed to me was equally as silly so it’s why I responded that way.
Look, agree we can disagree. What would help me get over the hurdle is an independent, engineered assessment of this, that is not at all political in nature. Unfortunately I have no expectation of that with the government.
I have an itch for the schadenfreude I would experience by watching people/politicians from AB react after voting yes for separation. Like, did you read the plan? It's basically:
Step 1: Separate
Step 2: Bank on a whole bunch of favours from Canada and the US to allow the transition to an independent nation.
Step 3: .... there is no step 3 because Step 2 is not a thing.
At best you're becoming North Montana.
Nah, Montana's a state. At best, we'd become Frozen Puerto Rico.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
To be clear my hang up is that Wolven in particular but others too have repeatedly said that this is a terrible policy because more harm will result.
I have tried to bring facts to bear that say the statement "More harm will occur" seems to be untrue from the plurality of evidence. Then they say "I don't care what the evidence says, I know more harm will occur".
And that last statement is where I get hung up. This is the exact attitude that has driven the right down a rabbit hole where they are no longer a legitimate political movement.
Some times they instead bring some evidence that is very very easily refuted by any sensible standards like comparing a small urban country with low rates of motor vehicle commuting on a per capita basis to large suburban countries. And I've made fairly reasons refutations to those pieces of evidence without response.
I'm fine, say you want lower speed limits, just don't say the evidence says more people will be harmed by the higher limits, it's unfactual.
I really want us to attack this government on the merits of there bad policy, but if we attack them for their OK to neutral policy, it diminishes the impact of us attacking their bad policy. This is bait so people here us complain about the un-realized harm of hire speed limits, instead of talking about all of the corporate welfare to legacy industries and donors. Or the dropping math grades, and increasing medicals wait times / personal costs. People hear us complaining about speed limits and listen less when we talk about them lighting $11,000/year/house of Alberta's money on fire.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
The question posed to me was equally as silly so it’s why I responded that way.
Not at all, because no one is arguing for unlimited speeds. The argument is that there is an optimum point, and the question GGG asked is why / if you believe the current number represents it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whynotnow
Look, agree we can disagree. What would help me get over the hurdle is an independent, engineered assessment of this, that is not at all political in nature. Unfortunately I have no expectation of that with the government.
Sure, I'm not expecting that either. But of the things this government has done in the way they've done them, this is one of the scarce few where I can feel a bit of relief that they likely got this one right for a change.
I have made an 'X' inquiry about what appears to me to be a discrete $280 million dollar annual oversight in the 'fully costed' separation financial plan. No response yet...I will keep you posted.
As for the buildings, I don't know where one might find estimates of the cost to buy the prisons themselves but that also is not addressed in the plan and there are 6 (Bowden, Drumheller, Edmonton Max, Edmonton (Women), Grande Cache and Grierson) and is not a small cost to have left out of a 'fully costed' plan: https://www.canada.ca/en/correctiona...s/prairie.html
I wanted to raise a specific concrete example that people can hopefully use to counter the upcoming discussions that will be expected to come from separation supporters who will be loaded with deep thought-out talking points like "We get complete unlimited wealth and lose nothing! How can you not want to separate!?" It is time to start putting every claim under serious public scrutiny and not just assume a majority of Albertans who vote cannot be misled into a Brexit-like blunder.
