Fair enough, I think a lot of people feel that way. But I just think as a society in general we lean too far towards villainizing speed as an issue, without looking that the problems created by drivers in the 10th -15th percentile range of speed on the road.
And as mentioned before, higher speed limits generally tend to create narrow outliers based on natural experiments that have been measured. So to answer your question, what evidence we have says that when you raise the speed limit, the slowest vehicles go more faster, and the fastest vehicles go less faster.
And I really do believe in the concept that rather than slow being safe, narrow variation is safe. Maybe I am wrong, but there are also weak natural experiments that support that belief.
I fully support that, and it's obvious if you drive 80 leaving Calgary westbound that driving the speed limit where a road is vastly overbuilt for that limit leads to most people driving 120, and the person at the limit(stuff that can be required by employers) is actually the most hazardous person there.
If you are in the right lane, two more lanes show up on your right with people accelerating to 120, trucks joining from Stony, so moving right as the slow vehicle is not wise or supported by design, so you drive 80 and get double passed on the left and right. It's a perfect example of what you are saying would be safer with a higher posted limit.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
The interstate speed limit in Montana is 130km/h, its not like it's a novel concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanfan
South Dakota and parts of Wyoming also have 80 mile per hour limits.
Road fatalities per 100,000 people:
Alberta: 6.2
Montana: 18.4
South Dakota: 15.2
Wyoming: 24.7
Not exactly a glowing endorsement of this being a good idea. Not surprisingly the states leading the way in road safety have significantly better rates compared to the rest of the US:
Minnesota: 7.1
Utah: 8.2
Wisconsin: 9.9
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mazrim For This Useful Post:
Road fatalities per 100,000 people:
Alberta: 6.2
Montana: 18.4
South Dakota: 15.2
Wyoming: 24.7
Not exactly a glowing endorsement of this being a good idea. Not surprisingly the states leading the way in road safety have significantly better rates compared to the rest of the US:
Minnesota: 7.1
Utah: 8.2
Wisconsin: 9.9
Maybe just looking at aggregated numbers does not provide the whole story
Quote:
Among the takeaways is that interstates are generally less crash-prone than non-interstate highways, while the most crash-prone routes often snake over highway passes, in some cases on routes initially designed for wagons rather than modern cars. The data, unfortunately, doesn’t give us a good way to explore common crash factors like winter storms, animal collisions or impaired driving.
’Tis the season for holiday parties. Which states have the most drunk drivers? Forbes Advisor crunched the numbers to find out.
Forbes Advisor took a look at statistics to determine the worst states for drunk drivers. Topping the list is Montana.
In Montana, 8.39 drunk drivers were involved in a fatal crash for every 100,000 licensed drivers, and 6.92 people were killed in a crash involving a drunk driver for every 100,000 state residents, both the highest in the country. Nearly half of traffic deaths in Montana are caused by drunk drivers, also the highest in the nation.
The top 10 states with the most drunk drivers:
Montana
Wyoming
Texas
North Dakota
South Dakota
Oregon
South Carolina
Maine
New Mexico
Idaho
The map only covers crash rates, not fatalities. You can sort with deaths by 100 million miles traveled, which will skew towards higher volume roads and it's still not good for Montana.
It also shows traffic volumes far below Alberta's major highways. Most are a half to a third. It should be obvious by now you can't just say it works in Montana so it would work here.
Unless you get T-boned by a car going 150 while trying to cross the highway to turn left from a stop sign intersection. Then speed is killing you, the other driver, and all of the passengers.
I really do not think the ROI is there on this change. More risk, likely more fatalities, just so some people can have a heavier foot on the gas pedal?
The trade off between FREEDUMB and killing people doesn't add up.
Stoney Trail already has problems with kids going on there and treating it like a race track... but even without that, the speeds lead to pretty scary accidents:
I get the argument from the UCP perspective. They don't care if people die as long as we stop talking about toppling the government or closely looking at the terrible things they are doing.
I don't really get the argument from anyone else.
The real tragedy of AI search engines is anyone can come up with an opinion piece to support their argument, and anyone thoughtful enough can come up with a study. Example below.
The paper your article is referencing pre-supposes a decline of 3% / year in traffic fatalities / mile driven. But did not look at factors that created that decline in proceeding years. So in 1993 they had an expected/actual fatality rate of 6,244 and in 2017 they had an expected fatality rate of 5180 with a actual of 5,87. So with a 25% increase in population the US saw a 6% decline in traffic fatalities. while the typical maximum state speed limit in the country increase between 5 -10 mph. Basically it says the roads got faster and safer, but they expect it to be more safer based on a model they created.
I could throw in a similar article out that cherry picks some data to show Montana got safer when they didn't have speed limits, ignoring the fact that the roads were safer in 2 of the 4 year, average in 1, a worse in 1. but overall from 94 - 21, Montana showed relatively flat risk levels with the speed limit going from 65 to null to 75 to 80.
I think there is room for a lot more nuance in the conversation than you are seeing.
The real tragedy of AI search engines is anyone can come up with an opinion piece to support their argument, and anyone thoughtful enough can come up with a study. Example below.
The paper your article is referencing pre-supposes a decline of 3% / year in traffic fatalities / mile driven. But did not look at factors that created that decline in proceeding years. So in 1993 they had an expected/actual fatality rate of 6,244 and in 2017 they had an expected fatality rate of 5180 with a actual of 5,87. So with a 25% increase in population the US saw a 6% decline in traffic fatalities. while the typical maximum state speed limit in the country increase between 5 -10 mph. Basically it says the roads got faster and safer, but they expect it to be more safer based on a model they created.
I could throw in a similar article out that cherry picks some data to show Montana got safer when they didn't have speed limits, ignoring the fact that the roads were safer in 2 of the 4 year, average in 1, a worse in 1. but overall from 94 - 21, Montana showed relatively flat risk levels with the speed limit going from 65 to null to 75 to 80.
I think there is room for a lot more nuance in the conversation than you are seeing.
Sure, but when you boil it down to saving a couple of minutes on your drive versus people dying, what's your point? The argument is that you don't think the speed change will affect safety? Really?? And any information contradicting this position is wrong and the evidence is... Montana?
Is driving a little faster really worth it? Is it the rush of the speed or the time saving?
Also, is the nuanced conversation really worth it when it's just a distraction tactic from the trashbag government that is trying to hide real issues behind speed limits and license plates?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Sure, but when you boil it down to saving a couple of minutes on your drive versus people dying, what's your point? The argument is that you don't think the speed change will affect safety? Really?? And any information contradicting this position is wrong and the evidence is... Montana?
Is driving a little faster really worth it? Is it the rush of the speed or the time saving?
Also, is the nuanced conversation really worth it when it's just a distraction tactic from the trashbag government that is trying to hide real issues behind speed limits and license plates?
When you boil down to it, the evidence doesn't support that being the choice.
The evidence is limited and shows somewhere between a null effect on safety to slightly safer when speed limits are set to the speeds people are driving (on highways). And people are not driving 100/110 on Stony / Deerfoot / Hwy1 / Hwy2.
So the real choice you are advocating for is to be maybe slightly less safe, because it might make you feel slightly safer.
And trust me, I don't dismiss any of the problems with this trash bag government, but we should fight them when they are wrong, not when they are somewhere between neutral and correct.
I'll even say it again, this is a trash bag government who needs to be gotten rid of.
they just aren't structurally wrong on this one.
Last edited by #-3; 12-22-2025 at 01:28 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Sure, but when you boil it down to saving a couple of minutes on your drive versus people dying, what's your point? The argument is that you don't think the speed change will affect safety? Really?? And any information contradicting this position is wrong and the evidence is... Montana?
Is driving a little faster really worth it? Is it the rush of the speed or the time saving?
Also, is the nuanced conversation really worth it when it's just a distraction tactic from the trashbag government that is trying to hide real issues behind speed limits and license plates?
Yeah...to me this is an important point.
Highway driving is a marathon, not a sprint. A few extra km/h on a long trip really isn't going to make much of a difference and is the degeneration of safety really worth a few minutes?
Not for me. You set the cruise and be on your way.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
When you boil down to it, the evidence doesn't support that being the choice.
The evidence is limited and shows somewhere between a null effect on safety to slightly safer when speed limits are set to the speeds people are driving (on highways). And people are not driving 100/110 on Stony / Deerfoot / Hwy1 / Hwy2.
So the real choice are are advocating for is to be maybe slightly less safe, because it might make you feel slightly safer.
What evidence is limited?
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute calculated the effects of speed increases.
Insurance companies are pretty good at zooming in on data and they have a lot of skin in the game because they are the ones paying out on the insurance claims for accidents. I expect they would have a better grasp on this conversation than the politicians in the state of Montana.
Insurance companies do not work on "feelings" they work on data and money.
Quote:
For the new study, Charles Farmer, IIHS vice president for research and statistical services, analyzed the effect of changes in the maximum posted speed limit in every state from 1993 to 2017. Looking at annual traffic fatalities per mile traveled for each state and taking into account other factors that affect fatality rates — including changes in unemployment, the number of potential young drivers (ages 16-24) and the seat belt use rate — he calculated the effect of speed limit increases.
Farmer found that a 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways — the roads most directly affected by changes to the maximum speed limit — and a 3 percent increase on other roads. In total, over the 25-year study period, there were 36,760 more deaths — 13,638 on interstates and freeways — and 23,122 on other roads — than would have been expected if maximum speed limits hadn't changed over that time.
Insurance companies are pretty good at zooming in on data and they have a lot of skin in the game because they are the ones paying out on the insurance claims for accidents. I expect they would have a better grasp on this conversation than the politicians in the state of Montana.
Insurance companies do not work on "feelings" they work on data and money.
As I mentioned.
That study pre-supposed an annual decrease of 3% per year in traffic fatalities, because they observed an earlier trend. and during the time period of the study they saw fatalities drop 6% while the population increase 25% and speed limits increased by over 10%.
So basically if you take that exact studies data, and strip away all of the pre-suppositions over improved safety over time, you would come away with the exact opposite conclusion. I think the evidence is weak, because I don't think it's fair to dismiss all of the safety gains that would have been made over that 24 year period, in terms of driver awareness, vehicle quality, road construction...
But I also think it's fallacious to use this report to say there are 25% more people, there were 300 fewer vehicle deaths, speeds went up 10mph, therefore speed kills.
And for me the best evidence available is real world natural experiments, vs extrapolating tends outwards and comparing date. that evidence generally shows a very very small to non-existent effect in either direction, meaning money isn't really at issue here for insurance companies, so yes I do think there are people working at insurance companies who have the same incorrect gut reaction that many do, that speed is harmful. And it is not worthwhile to fight that gut instinct, because the effect is so small.
Last edited by #-3; 12-22-2025 at 01:58 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
There have been several studies over the last 20 years and I believe all of them (if not then most) show that increases in speed limits led to more accidents and more fatalities. At least one of them, I believe out of Kansas, compared against similar road sections where the speed limit was not increased.
I don’t think nitpicking one study is really a good expense of time when so many point the same direction. And, as was already pointed out, any argument for increasing speed limits that comes before improving infrastructure is not an argument for increased safety and is solely one for very slightly increased convenience at the cost of human lives.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
This reminds me very much of the removal of photo radar. A nonsense choice which has had predictable results because it looked at only one aspect of an issue instead of smartly considering it as a whole. Something that sounds on the surface like it benefits everyone, but really only benefits the edge cases that are already problems on the road and hurts everyone else.
If we care about safety, making choices that make the roads less safety and put a greater burden on more costly forms of enforcement while reducing the ability to enforce overall do not seem wise.
That study pre-supposed an annual decrease of 3% per year in traffic fatalities, because they observed an earlier trend. and during the time period of the study they saw fatalities drop 6% while the population increase 25% and speed limits increased by over 10%.
So basically if you take that exact studies data, and strip away all of the pre-suppositions over improved safety over time, you would come away with the exact opposite conclusion. I think the evidence is weak, because I don't think it's fair to dismiss all of the safety gains that would have been made over that 24 year period, in terms of driver awareness, vehicle quality, road construction...
But I also think it's fallacious to use this report to say there are 25% more people, there were 300 fewer vehicle deaths, speeds went up 10mph, therefore speed kills.
Happy to disagree. I think the Insurance companies are properly motivated in this conversation (which isn't often the case). If they say that speed increases are bad because it causes more accidents (which in turn cause more claims and payouts) then I trust that they are not making something out of nothing. What motivation would they have to spend money to do the research and put out a report that suggests speed increases increase fatalities if it is not true?
Politicians on the other hand love to make something out of nothing. The UCP are throwing this out there because they could not care less if 5% more people die while driving faster. They probably do not care if all 5% of those increased fatalities come from their rural voter base.
So now it comes down to the people supporting the change... are they just putting their personal thrill of speed over the collective risk to life? Are they putting the convenience of driving at higher speeds and saving a couple of minutes on a trip over safety to others?
If we are just trying to reduce commute times, why are we trying to do that? Is it to free up people's time to do more valuable things? Perhaps we should focus more on autonomous driving so people can do more valuable things while sitting in a car?
This reminds me very much of the removal of photo radar. A nonsense choice which has had predictable results because it looked at only one aspect of an issue instead of smartly considering it as a whole. Something that sounds on the surface like it benefits everyone, but really only benefits the edge cases that are already problems on the road and hurts everyone else.
If we care about safety, making choices that make the roads less safety and put a greater burden on more costly forms of enforcement while reducing the ability to enforce overall do not seem wise.
I am not really a fan of Jespersen but I did think this interviewee had some excellent points that are worth considering here.
The UCP takes continuous small steps toward reducing public safety and increasing the burden on healthcare and it really does look like they are trying to collapse the system at any cost to the people of Alberta.
Making people more sick.
Killing people through reducing speed enforcement.
Killing people through increasing speed limits.
The pattern is gross. If ERs are too full to function normally, what is going to happen when we have a massive incident that sends dozens of people to the ER?
