I think the biggest issue with raising speed limits and assuming most people will rise 10k above that is that it can result in a large speed delta between most people traffic and the slow movers. Semi's can't necessarily go that fast, campers shouldn't, school buses...lol. You can mitigate this with enough lanes, but with two it can end up being a bit of a hazard.
Most jurisdictions have lower speed limits for trucks though creating large speed deltas. In a place like Germany the differentials can be staggering.
I think the biggest issue with raising speed limits and assuming most people will rise 10k above that is that it can result in a large speed delta between most people traffic and the slow movers. Semi's can't necessarily go that fast, campers shouldn't, school buses...lol. You can mitigate this with enough lanes, but with two it can end up being a bit of a hazard.
not to go into the fact that increases at already higher speeds doesn't really save much time, just increases risk with little return on time
120km verses 110 saves 13.6 min traveling from calgary to edmonton... not really much of a change.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
I think the biggest issue with raising speed limits and assuming most people will rise 10k above that is that it can result in a large speed delta between most people traffic and the slow movers. Semi's can't necessarily go that fast, campers shouldn't, school buses...lol. You can mitigate this with enough lanes, but with two it can end up being a bit of a hazard.
There are still large trucks that are governed to 90 or 100 kmh. Ive seen the stickers on the back of them when I go past.
Yes, if you reduce the gap between the slowest moving vehicles and the fastest ones by raising the floor, the average speed will go up. That's just a product of recalculating an average when you take out the lowest numbers from the data.
Again, this conclusion does not automatically follow. In a vacuum, sure, you can say higher speed presents with higher risk, but we're talking about real-world situations, and what matters is variance, not the absolute number on the speedometer. Collisions are far more likely when there's a wide gap between the fastest and slowest vehicles. If higher limits bring everyone's speeds closer together, you actually reduce that risk. We're not talking about cranking the speed limit to match the black Ram driver.
The data consistently shows that when limits are properly aligned with how people already drive, crash rates stay the same or even decline. It's when you have slow drivers acting as moving chicanes and impatient drivers weaving around them that things get messy.
A broken clock is correct twice a day, this is one of those times. [shrug]
Variance is a factor but higher speeds are higher risk, that fact is irrefutable. Longer stopping distances, less time for reaction and higher collision forces all increase the outcomes of collisions. Is it material at 110 vs 120 vs 130? That needs be determined and based on evidence not some online survey from these idiots.
The data also shows that the speed limit has to align with the road design, traffic volume and makeup, so saying just raise it even further because that’s what people do doesn’t really make it justifiable.
I think the biggest issue with raising speed limits and assuming most people will rise 10k above that is that it can result in a large speed delta between most people traffic and the slow movers. Semi's can't necessarily go that fast, campers shouldn't, school buses...lol. You can mitigate this with enough lanes, but with two it can end up being a bit of a hazard.
That assumes it will increase 85th percentile speed significantly. I would be t on only a 3-4km increase from going 110-120. I’d also expect enforcement to remain in the 130 range.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Variance is a factor but higher speeds are higher risk, that fact is irrefutable. Longer stopping distances, less time for reaction and higher collision forces all increase the outcomes of collisions. Is it material at 110 vs 120 vs 130? That needs be determined and based on evidence not some online survey from these idiots.
The data also shows that the speed limit has to align with the road design, traffic volume and makeup, so saying just raise it even further because that’s what people do doesn’t really make it justifiable.
Again, we're talking about how people are already driving today. People are already driving 120, and no one is getting a ticket for doing 120 in a 110, so it's quite clear that law enforcement doesn't treat that speed as unsafe.
Increasing the speed limit to 120 KM/H does not automatically make all those people who felt safe driving 120 in a 110 KM/H zone suddenly bump up another 10 KM/H, which is what your original assertion was. But it will bring more of those "I only do the speed limit" people doing 110 up to 120, which is an improvement from a safety perspective; the probability of a collision is heavily influenced by driver behavior and traffic flow dynamics, which are shaped by speed variance far more than just the average speed.
At 110 KM/H versus 120 KM/H, the change in stopping distance (~42 feet) is marginal compared to the reduction in lane changes, tailgating, and aggressive overtaking that happens when traffic moves more uniformly. That's why studies routinely show that roads with lower speed variance tend to have fewer crashes, not more.
I can't find anything that confirms or denies it from any actual engineering documentation, but apparently the design speed of Highway 2 is higher than the PSL anyway, "built and rated for 120 km/h" so it's alleged. Aligning the limit with both road design and the way people naturally drive is a pretty sound decision. Also keep in mind many of our speed limits were set when vehicles still had four-wheel drum brakes.
The smart thing to do would be to install electronic variable speed limit signs so that they can adjust the maximum based on conditions. A ####ty winter day can have a max of 80 or whatever is appropriate while a beautiful summer day can be 120 or more.
In case anyone wants to hear the Calgary Southeast MLAs (Matt Jones) response to the use of the NWS clause here you go:
Spoiler!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and apologies for the delay as we are receiving high volumes of correspondence. I agree with your points on the importance of creating strong learning environments and ensuring classrooms have the resources needed for students to thrive.
I believe deeply in the importance of education and in equipping teachers with the tools and resources they need for students to succeed. Throughout my time as an MLA, I have met with teachers to hear directly about the challenges facing their classrooms and proposed solutions. Alberta’s student population has and is increasing rapidly, and with that growth comes greater diversity and complexity in student needs. These realities place enormous pressure on teachers who are already working tirelessly to provide the best possible education for every child.
Concerns about class sizes, classroom complexity, and the availability of resources are not abstract—they shape the daily experience of both teachers and students. When classrooms are overcrowded, it becomes harder to give each student the attention they deserve.
I want to emphasize my commitment to fostering collaboration to address these challenges. You mention the importance of transparency and accountability, and I continue to advocate for policies that include measurable outcomes and meaningful teacher input. I have consistently brought forward the concerns of my constituents regarding education, including the need for more schools in Calgary-South East, class sizes, complexity, and teacher resourcing. I am pleased to see and support recent commitments by the Government of Alberta to address education pressures. The government has pledged to:
Build More Schools
Modernize Education Funding to ensure transparency and responsiveness.
Implement Data-Driven Planning so resources are deployed where they are needed most.
Add Student Supports for those with complex needs, including mental health and learning challenges.
Make Classrooms Safer by addressing violence and aggression, ensuring every teacher and student feels secure.
Create the Class Size and Complexity Task Force, giving teachers, parents, and education leaders a direct voice in shaping policy.
These measures will not solve every challenge overnight, but they represent a foundation for meaningful change.
Regarding my support of Bill 2 and the use of the notwithstanding clause (Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), as of Monday, October 27th there was still no prospect of a timely resolution to the strike which had disrupted families and prevented hundreds of thousands of children from attending school for three weeks.
Democratically elected legislatures are responsible at times for balancing the interests and rights of the public, including families, children, employees and employers. This is a difficult balance, but in this case all other options risked unacceptable further disruption and uncertainty for children, who needed to return to school, and their families.
This was one of the hardest votes I’ve had to make, and ultimately, it was made with the well-being of children and families in mind.
I understand that many people disagree with the use of legislation and the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause. I understand and respect those concerns and I endeavor to balance interests, rights, and the public interest to the best of my ability while I continue to represent Calgary-South East.
Sincerely,
After this I had asked for clarification on why they opted not to order the teachers back to work and go to binding arbitration. This was his response:
Spoiler!
Before taking this course, Alberta’s government carefully examined every available option. Binding arbitration had the potential to extend the dispute and leave students and their families vulnerable to further disruptions through the rest of the bargaining process once talks shifted to the local bargaining tables. In short, the use of legislation and the notwithstanding clause was the only course to guarantee stability, protect students, and prevent further harm to Alberta’s kids.
Sincerely
Now I don’t know the makeup of the ATA union and all of their locals. Are there multiple locals? Does each local have to ratify the CBA separately or is it all done through the ATA?
Either way the use of the notwithstanding clause for bargaining with a union is completely over the line and a gross misuse of legislation.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
Hey dummies, you could have prevented ANY harm had you actually come to the table earlier in 2025, with intent to bargain in good faith and put up legitimate offerings.
The preventing harm to the kids angle infuriates me.
In case anyone wants to hear the Calgary Southeast MLAs (Matt Jones) response to the use of the NWS clause here you go:
Spoiler!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and apologies for the delay as we are receiving high volumes of correspondence. I agree with your points on the importance of creating strong learning environments and ensuring classrooms have the resources needed for students to thrive.
I believe deeply in the importance of education and in equipping teachers with the tools and resources they need for students to succeed. Throughout my time as an MLA, I have met with teachers to hear directly about the challenges facing their classrooms and proposed solutions. Alberta’s student population has and is increasing rapidly, and with that growth comes greater diversity and complexity in student needs. These realities place enormous pressure on teachers who are already working tirelessly to provide the best possible education for every child.
Concerns about class sizes, classroom complexity, and the availability of resources are not abstract—they shape the daily experience of both teachers and students. When classrooms are overcrowded, it becomes harder to give each student the attention they deserve.
I want to emphasize my commitment to fostering collaboration to address these challenges. You mention the importance of transparency and accountability, and I continue to advocate for policies that include measurable outcomes and meaningful teacher input. I have consistently brought forward the concerns of my constituents regarding education, including the need for more schools in Calgary-South East, class sizes, complexity, and teacher resourcing. I am pleased to see and support recent commitments by the Government of Alberta to address education pressures. The government has pledged to:
Build More Schools
Modernize Education Funding to ensure transparency and responsiveness.
Implement Data-Driven Planning so resources are deployed where they are needed most.
Add Student Supports for those with complex needs, including mental health and learning challenges.
Make Classrooms Safer by addressing violence and aggression, ensuring every teacher and student feels secure.
Create the Class Size and Complexity Task Force, giving teachers, parents, and education leaders a direct voice in shaping policy.
These measures will not solve every challenge overnight, but they represent a foundation for meaningful change.
Regarding my support of Bill 2 and the use of the notwithstanding clause (Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), as of Monday, October 27th there was still no prospect of a timely resolution to the strike which had disrupted families and prevented hundreds of thousands of children from attending school for three weeks.
Democratically elected legislatures are responsible at times for balancing the interests and rights of the public, including families, children, employees and employers. This is a difficult balance, but in this case all other options risked unacceptable further disruption and uncertainty for children, who needed to return to school, and their families.
This was one of the hardest votes I’ve had to make, and ultimately, it was made with the well-being of children and families in mind.
I understand that many people disagree with the use of legislation and the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause. I understand and respect those concerns and I endeavor to balance interests, rights, and the public interest to the best of my ability while I continue to represent Calgary-South East.
Sincerely,
After this I had asked for clarification on why they opted not to order the teachers back to work and go to binding arbitration. This was his response:
Spoiler!
Before taking this course, Alberta’s government carefully examined every available option. Binding arbitration had the potential to extend the dispute and leave students and their families vulnerable to further disruptions through the rest of the bargaining process once talks shifted to the local bargaining tables. In short, the use of legislation and the notwithstanding clause was the only course to guarantee stability, protect students, and prevent further harm to Alberta’s kids.
Sincerely
Now I don’t know the makeup of the ATA union and all of their locals. Are there multiple locals? Does each local have to ratify the CBA separately or is it all done through the ATA?
Either way the use of the notwithstanding clause for bargaining with a union is completely over the line and a gross misuse of legislation.
Collective bargaining is done at the Central Table (larger issues are bargained here like salary, benefits, etc.,) then smaller local issues shift to local bargaining. Each set of bargaining deals with different issues.
The Following User Says Thank You to malcolmk14 For This Useful Post:
Kinda hilarious in the end they all conclude with their concerns for children. "If not for the existence of young people, this would have been an easy decision!" That's...not great guys, and sure doesn't help unions feel comfortable who have nothing to do with children. "Oh, so you'll take our rights with far fewer reservations. Well..."
Also the fact that they fund Alberta children at a lower rate than everywhere else in Canada and used the NWC to do solidify it sure doesn't back up their claim it is about the kids, and make them sound a lot more like scapegoats than a justification. Keep up the bull#### UCP, really going well so far...
Collective bargaining is done at the Central Table (larger issues are bargained here like salary, benefits, etc.,) then smaller local issues shift to local bargaining. Each set of bargaining deals with different issues.
So the sticking points from the ATA (class size caps / complexity) would have been solved at the larger table? So was there any merit to his reply saying that individual locals could have lengthened the strike?
The devil is in the detail of their use of the notwithstanding clause.
Not only did they use it to end the ATA strike, they pre-emptively used it to preclude any of the local bargaining units from striking.
Why that's important is that had the province elected the arbitration route while forcing teachers back, there would have been the potential for rolling strikes by teachers at the local level.
The sledgehammer of the NWC took not only the provincial negotiating away, but all of the local bargaining away from the teachers as well (CBE, CCSB, etc.).
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following User Says Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
I hate myself so I was reading through all the proposed resolutions and the absolute best one (apologies if already brought up) is the Alberta Pension Plan Rationale.
Quote:
Despite strong eƯorts by several Alberta-based conservative grassroots groups, the idea of replacing the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) with an Alberta Pension Plan (APP) has faced significant resistance—particularly from seniors.
Public opinion polls conducted by multiple leading national research firms consistently show that only 15% to 25% of Albertans support leaving the CPP. However, recent public opinion research commissioned by the Government of Alberta found a notable shift in sentiment. When respondents were assured that an APP would guarantee equal or better benefits than the CPP for Alberta seniors, support rose to 55%.
In addition to reassuring retirees, proponents of an Alberta Pension Plan must also connect with working Albertans who are increasingly burdened by rising CPP contributions. For many, higher payroll deductions are making it harder to afford basic necessities like food and housing. An APP that promises lower contribution rates could help make the case by directly addressing the financial strain many Albertans face.
To date, the campaign for an Alberta Pension Plan has leaned too heavily on logic, financial projections, and actuarial data—failing to adequately address the emotional concerns and anxieties of everyday Albertans. Building trust and public buy-in requires more than numbers; it requires empathy, reassurance, and a clear message that the APP would protect and improve the retirement security of all Albertans
That last paragraph just cracks me up.
__________________ I'm afraid of children identifying as cats and dogs. - Tuco
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to MrButtons For This Useful Post:
So the sticking points from the ATA (class size caps / complexity) would have been solved at the larger table? So was there any merit to his reply saying that individual locals could have lengthened the strike?
Yes, individual locals could go through the same bargaining process as Central Table bargaining.
The Following User Says Thank You to malcolmk14 For This Useful Post:
