Should speed limits be raised?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by clintb

I'd support a graduated speed limit increase in unison with higher driver education standards

Our roads have capacity for much better speeds, but most of our drivers don't!

Spot on. Much too often drivers in North America neglect to even do the most basic operations correctly.

Originally Posted by Chingas

With reference to the Autobahn road network, I drove on it and I didn't have any special German training. Was my presence a threat to the rest of the people on the road? I think this is over played, and the majority of people are already self policing their speed to what they are comfortable with. Sure some people get carried away, but the current limits aren't stopping them any way.

While you may have felt that you blended in, there is a good chance the locals identified that you were a foreigner. It's crazy that not long after entering a car, I can tell if the driver learned how to drive in Western Europe. As the Germans are strong and attentive drivers, they could have adjusted their driving to accommodate you. Most of us do that over here with those absolutely horrendous drivers that have found their way onto the roads; thanks Rainbow Driving School!

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

However, cars are substantially safer in virtually every way: they break faster

I know exactly what you were going for here, but couldn't help but snicker at how the spelling error is also true of today's cars...

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am sure someone will correct me if wrong, but I am sure the police can ticket vehicles that are travelling too slow. I don't know the particulars or parameters of what qualifies.

They can. Sort of. It falls under "obstruction of traffic", and isn't enforced very much. You really have to making a slow PITA of yourself to get a ticket for this. The most famous case I can recall is that a couple of buddies were driving side by side doing the speed limit (which, iirc was 70kph) and not letting anyone pass. They ended up backing up traffic so badly that police did nick them and ticket them for obstructing traffic. But it's a pretty rare charge in relation to operating a car. It's sort of like how you CAN get a ticket for going 101kph on Deerfoot, but almost never will. It really depends on the officer.

[Shaggin Wagon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

At work, so I have not watched the video.

• Does increasing the speed limit make roads significantly safer?

The video quotes a study where roads in the States had there speed limit's adjusted. Where the speed was lowered, crashes increase. Where the limit was increased, the crashes decreased. No numbers were given other that a percentage. Seems to make sense but you can make stats say anything.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would say no. I have never been involved in an accident that was caused by mechanical failure. It has always been due to driver error; or weather conditions contributing to driver error.

Agreed, except I think tires should be inspected at every registration renewal and winter tires need to be mandatory in winter. Most of these monkeys spinning out on Deerfoot, etc. in the winter are guys without winter tires.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would say no. I have never been involved in an accident that was caused by mechanical failure. It has always been due to driver error; or weather conditions contributing to driver error.

Curious. How big is your sample size.... and WHY?

Mechanical "failure" is one thing, poor maintenance is another. Bad tire tread, bad shocks, old calipres, etc all lead to longer braking distances, which can in turn can result in said "accidents".

I live next door to a mechanic now (last ~9 years). It amazes me what is allowed to be driven on AB roads.

Speed still kills. Two 18 year olds died just two weeks ago while another was seriously injured due to it. Just yesterday a big pileup on the Glenmore Reservior caused a massive parking lot. I even witnessed a hit and run. The guy(girl) flew off going upwards of 80 through a school zone to get away.

When people stop being idiots and learn to drive defensively (and accurately), then and only then should the speed limits be raised.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Curious. How big is your sample size.... and WHY?

Mechanical "failure" is one thing, poor maintenance is another. Bad tire tread, bad shocks, old calipres, etc all lead to longer braking distances, which can in turn can result in said "accidents".

I live next door to a mechanic now (last ~9 years). It amazes me what is allowed to be driven on AB roads.

Speed still kills. Two 18 year olds died just two weeks ago while another was seriously injured due to it. Just yesterday a big pileup on the Glenmore Reservior caused a massive parking lot. I even witnessed a hit and run. The guy(girl) flew off going upwards of 80 through a school zone to get away.

When people stop being idiots and learn to drive defensively (and accurately), then and only then should the speed limits be raised.

Oh please.

A. They were drunk.
B. They were going beyond the limits of the road design. Nobody here is advocating randomly increasing the limits to break-neck speeds. We want the speed limits to be increased (where applicable) to the design speed limits of the roads.

Did you even watch the video? We're talking about increasing speed limits in the context of the video, not just willy-nilly.

It's like you're saying increasing speed limits to reasonable levels will cause hit and runs, pile-ups on Glenmore and teenagers to drink and drive then drive like idiots while in their sports car.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would say no. I have never been involved in an accident that was caused by mechanical failure. It has always been due to driver error; or weather conditions contributing to driver error.

Neither have I, but we are a small sample size. I am sure you have seen many vehicles on the road that look to be in poor mechanical condition, I know I see them all the time. Old pick ups, tempos, sunfires, going like bats out of hell. I would be surprised if those vehicles had tires that were in good condition, brakes up to snuff. I can't recall where I heard this stat, but something like 1 in 3 commercial vehicles on the roads are not compliant with current safety requirments. Why would I think that private vehicles are any different.

[Shaggin Wagon]

I think the big point that seems to be missed is that this is intended to make the Sign "speed limit" mean exactly that. The studies presented indicate that only 15% of drivers should actually get up to this speed. Currently it seems that 85% of drivers can get up the the limit with no problem.

Also, focus should be on the highway not the cities. 50km/h on narrow street is fast enough. Raising the limit on the QE2 to 120km/h is not the same as saying we should raise playground zones to 120km/h.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh please.

A. They were drunk.
B. They were going beyond the limits of the road design. Nobody here is advocating randomly increasing the limits to break-neck speeds. We want the speed limits to be increased (where applicable) to the design speed limits of the roads.

Did you even watch the video? We're talking about increasing speed limits in the context of the video, not just willy-nilly.

It's like you're saying increasing speed limits to reasonable levels will cause hit and runs, pile-ups on Glenmore and teenagers to drink and drive then drive like idiots while in their sports car.

Nothing has been indicated so far that they were drunk, but speed was a factor.

I have no problem with people appealing for higher speed limits in certain cases. Go to town. Let the engineers decide.

But there will always be people that will feel they can go significantly faster (or slower) than others, thus the higher likelihood of collisions (not accidents, BTW).

And on another note on my week, I would like to catch up to the idiot that almost caused a masive pileup on Bow Tr at Sarcee when he came absolutely flying down behind me, passing on my right (where I was signalling to go.) He damn near took out the truck/trailer that was coming left into my lane (behind me) AND me. There couldn't have been 20 feet between the truck/trailer and myself (both changing lanes and doing the speed limit) yet this @$$hat going about 30 faster than both of us didn't care. Again ran off like a chickenshyte jackrabbit.

If I didn't BARELY catch him in the corner of one of my mirrors at the last second....

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Nothing has been indicated so far that they were drunk, but speed was a factor.

I have no problem with people appealing for higher speed limits in certain cases. Go to town. Let the engineers decide.

But there will always be people that will feel they can go significantly faster (or slower) than others, thus the higher likelihood of collisions (not accidents, BTW).

And on another note on my week, I would like to catch up to the idiot that almost caused a masive pileup on Bow Tr at Sarcee when he came absolutely flying down behind me, passing on my right (where I was signalling to go.) He damn near took out the truck/trailer that was coming left into my lane (behind me) AND me. There couldn't have been 20 feet between the truck/trailer and myself (both changing lanes and doing the speed limit) yet this @$$hat going about 30 faster than both of us didn't care. Again ran off like a chickenshyte jackrabbit.

If I didn't BARELY catch him in the corner of one of my mirrors at the last second....

You keep talking about dangerous rates of speed. You're the only one having that conversation. We are talking about increasing speed limits where they are too low; not speeding. That's what the video was about and that's what this thread is about.

Again, did you watch the video? There is a definite frame of reference for this discussion to which you seem oblivious.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

People are capable of using their own discretion to determine whether that speed is reasonable for them..

No, actually, they aren't. See, in ideal conditions, almost everyone drives faster than the speed limit. In poor conditions, almost everyone drives either really really slowly, or at the speed limit, neither of which is ideal. So a variable and accurate speed limit would help in both situations.

You are arguing as if people know how to drive. In general, they don't.

[Shaggin Wagon]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And on another note on my week, I would like to catch up to the idiot that almost caused a masive pileup on Bow Tr at Sarcee ... about 30 faster than both of us didn't care.

They should not raise the speed limit at Bow and Sarcee

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You keep talking about dangerous rates of speed. You're the only one having that conversation. We are talking about increasing speed limits where they are too low; not speeding. That's what the video was about and that's what this thread is about.

Again, did you watch the video? There is a definite frame of reference for this discussion to which you seem oblivious.

Yes, I watched the video. It very well might seem like that first road shown is too slow. Perhaps it is. Six winding, undivided lanes. What is the history there? Was the limit higher but collision rate significantly higher? I don't know. I am not an engineer, but I can see the logic in keeping the speed down there due to the undivided aspect alone.

And yes, you have to consider the idiot aspect as well. Raising speed limits for all will just raise their comfort zones as well (to a limit perhaps).

Again, I have no problem with people petitioning certain areas to get a review by the engineers. But if the engineers calculate a safe limit (under ideal conditions) why not respect that? Expecially if it has gone through an appeal/reevaluation.

My insurance rates should be next to nothing (~31 years driving, 500,000-600,000 kms, two collisions, neither my fault) yet I pay money to offset the costs of other people's collisions, many of which are speed related.

For all the people here that advocate regulations on everything, it always amazes me that THIS one is always taboo! LOL, and I am the Libertarian!

Heck, if there was a private highway between say here and Edmonton, and the owners of said highway required certain driving tests for the driver as well as regular vehicle inspections to ensure safety, I would have no problem with that! Autobahn it!

But we have very poor practices for licensing/renewing drivers (especially as they age) and vehicle safety here. Increasing speed limits without addressing those two points will do nothing but increase the collision rate. It has to. Those that go 90 now will still go 90 as it is not as much about the limit as it is their comfort zone. Those that would say 10 over will still go 10 over the new limit.

You increase the speed delta between vehicles and you increase collisions.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I know exactly what you were going for here, but couldn't help but snicker at how the spelling error is also true of today's cars...

lol - good catch

[19Yzerman19]

The phrase "speed was a factor" is in itself hilarious in discussing an accident. It's utterly meaningless. Yes, of course speed was a factor. Had the cars been traveling at, oh I don't know, 3 kph, they probably wouldn't have caused a significant collision. If there is a traffic accident, more or less regardless of how fast those involved were driving, speed was a factor.

Great video. I immediately recognized it as the same guy who did the take-down piece on Bill Vander Zalm's complete and utter garbage that he was peddling - successfully - during the HST referendum process.

[Shawnski]

FYI, here is the link to the study from which he quotes.

This report contains a review and assessment of speed limits posted in speed zones on Provincial rural highways, and practices used by the Ministry of Transportation (MoT) to determine the appropriate speed limit. Municipal speed limits and speed limit setting practices are not within the scope of this study.

Those are the very first words in the study, yet he is applying it to a municipality. Food for thought.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Curious. How big is your sample size.... and WHY?

Mechanical "failure" is one thing, poor maintenance is another. Bad tire tread, bad shocks, old calipres, etc all lead to longer braking distances, which can in turn can result in said "accidents".

In my lifetime I would say I have been involved in 7 or 8 accidents. 3 were my fault. (Including one witnessed by a cop who said he would have done the same thing if he had been driving, but a rear ender is always the last car at fault.) I have also witnessed or been the passenger in about 4 or 5 others.

While I agree the things you mention can be safety issues and shouldn't be ignored, I would also say that those are already addressed in many ways by insurance companies who require inspections at certain points in a car's life. However my 10 minutes of good driving once when I was 16 is good enough to keep me driving for life.

And not even me; being a CPer that also makes me one of the best drivers out there. However I know people who have taken their drivers test several times, and after about 5 or 6 attempts finally manage to barely pass the exam. Is that good enough for life?

So while your list could always be contributing factors; I can honestly say that driver error has always been the single most significant factor in every accident I have been a part of.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ken0042

In my lifetime I would say I have been involved in 7 or 8 accidents. 3 were my fault. (Including one witnessed by a cop who said he would have done the same thing if he had been driving, but a rear ender is always the last car at fault.) I have also witnessed or been the passenger in about 4 or 5 others.

While I agree the things you mention can be safety issues and shouldn't be ignored, I would also say that those are already addressed in many ways by insurance companies who require inspections at certain points in a car's life. However my 10 minutes of good driving once when I was 16 is good enough to keep me driving for life.

And not even me; being a CPer that also makes me one of the best drivers out there. However I know people who have taken their drivers test several times, and after about 5 or 6 attempts finally manage to barely pass the exam. Is that good enough for life?

So while your list could always be contributing factors; I can honestly say that driver error has always been the single most significant factor in every accident I have been a part of.

I believe this is for vehicles of 12 yrs and older. There are a lot of crappy cars on the roads that are under 12 yrs old.

[Shawnski]

Couple other points on this video before I have to get ready for work.

First, he starts with the six lane road and calls it "divided". No, it isn't. A divided road is called a "dual carriageway" and has a clear barrier between the opposing lanes. Think Deerfoot (grass/concrete dividing areas)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway

Secondly, he references a study where raising the limit lowered crashes, and lowering limit raised crashes.

Guess he didn't read the rest of his FIRST report (that I linked to above) which on page 38 of 55 shows many different studies on both situations and the majority of them are the opposite of what he is saying.

Yes, there is some merits at times to what he says (the yellow speed sign for example), but all in all, this seems very cherry picked.

Anyways, have fun all.