• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

axlsalinger said:
Hv8Lur3.jpeg
Click to expand...

May you never get that phone call from the OPP fuck face.
 
your entire argument is so overblown, it's honestly kind of shocking. Stop pretending that amending the speed limit a tiny bit to a speed it should have always been is going to lead to some kind of anarchy. It's on the level of what's his name talking about driving from Newmarket to downtown and picturing Mad Max.

besides, "self-driving cars are like 2 years away" - elon
 
Couple of things: CMV have speed limiters at 105 km/h. Sometimes when they are on a decline they can exceed it but in general 105 km/h is the top speed of any CMV. Non limited CMV face hefty fines if caught.

Also, if we raise the speed limit and more people die, there will be less people needing care and therefore less people draining the health care system. So maybe, Dougie is play 3D checkers here.
 
axlsalinger said:
your entire argument is so overblown, it's honestly kind of shocking.
Click to expand...

This is amazing, truly. All I've done is point out the actual real world impacts of the increased speeds. That's it, that's all. 120kmh is kind of a hard limit on what the human body is capable of surviving the impacts of. If that's shocking to you whatever, the data is the data. The higher we allow average speed of travel to be, accident fatality rates scale up drastically. Simple fact. You just don't seem to care because something something too slow, despite their being no meaningful trip time improvements from driving faster. A 30 minute trip at safer speeds is too slow, so let's create higher risk of fatality (again, this is the data) so that we can make it a 28 minute trip. Vroom vroom.

axlsalinger said:
Stop pretending that amending the speed limit a tiny bit to a speed it should have always been is going to lead to some kind of anarchy.
Click to expand...

I've been quite clear with what the real risks are. For every 1% in speed increase over 100kmh, there is a 4% increase in fatality risk in an accident and any impact over 120kmh is basically fatal (which doesn't mean the travel speed prior to braking, but the actual speed travelled at impact...if you have time to brake, you can obviously change your travel speed at the time of the accident).

I never said "anarchy" or any such bullshit, just higher more fatalities on our highways. Something in the range of 20% based on real world data. 80-100 extra dead people per year for marginal trip length improvements that only the trucking industry really cares about.
 
Again:

Most of Ontario's four-lane highways were designed to safely handle speeds higher than 100 kilometres per hour, said Angelo DiCicco, president of the Ontario Safety League, a non-profit charity that aims to reduce preventable deaths and injuries on Ontario roads through education.
Click to expand...

So that makes the speed limit bump from 100 to 110 km/h "quite reasonable," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, serious and unbiased traffic safety experts generally agree that raising specific Ontario highway limits to 110 km/h is reasonable, though this consensus comes with a major catch regarding driver behavior and enforcement. [1]

The debate is not between "pro-speed" and "anti-speed" groups. Instead, it is divided between traffic design engineers and public health researchers, both of whom use data to support their points.

The Argument for "Yes, it is reasonable" (The Engineering View) [1]
Civil engineers and road safety advocates generally agree that the 110 km/h increase on 400-series highways is practical for several reasons: [1, 2]
  • Matching Design Standards: Most of Ontario's 400-series freeways were originally engineered and built to handle speeds of 110 km/h to 120 km/h safely. [1]
  • Harmonizing with Actual Traffic Speed: The "85th percentile rule" is a core engineering principle stating that speed limits should match the speed at which 85% of drivers naturally travel when conditions are good. In Ontario, the average free-flowing traffic speed on the 401 has historically hovered around 115 km/h to 120 km/h regardless of the 100 km/h sign. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • Reducing Speed Variance: Experts agree that the highest risk for highway collisions comes from a wide gap between the fastest and slowest drivers. Raising the limit to 110 km/h brings the legal limit closer to actual driving speeds, closing that gap. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • National Alignment: Ontario was a lagging outlier. Six other Canadian provinces—including Alberta, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia—have successfully operated with 110 km/h or 120 km/h limits for years. [1]

The Argument for "No, it is a risk" (The Public Health View)
Conversely, university researchers, epidemiologists, and entities like the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) warn that the changes could increase severe injuries. Their concerns focus on human behavior: [, 2, 3]
  • The "Creep" Effect: Academic studies indicate that when you raise a limit, the average speed of traffic often creeps up slightly as well. If the limit is 110 km/h, some drivers will treat 125 km/h or 130 km/h as the new informal baseline.
  • Crash Physics: Kinetic energy increases exponentially with speed. A collision at 120 km/h releases significantly more destructive force than one at 100 km/h, which automatically lowers survival rates in a crash.
  • Persistent Speeding Trends: Independent traffic data shows that speed-related road fatalities have climbed in Canada, making health experts wary of any policy that could encourage faster driving. [1, 2, 3, 5]

The Common Ground
Both sides agree on one fundamental point: safety depends on behavior, design, and enforcement, not just the number on the sign. Unbiased experts agree that the 110 km/h limit is perfectly safe if the government strictly enforces it, keeps the 150 km/h stunt driving threshold firmly in place, and if drivers adjust their speeds downward during poor weather or heavy congestion. [1, 2, 3]

 
I've already summed it up numerous times.

Trip times will improve marginally (approx 3-4 minutes in real world driving conditions on a 1 hr drive) at the cost of a higher fatality risk (For every 1% in velocity increase, the risk of fatality in an accident goes up 4%) and accident rates increase with higher velocity as well (miss me with studies from rural Montana and Utah, they're just not applicable to southern Ontario and more than enough studies of similar highway systems have been done). That's the summary.

I don't see why the juice is worth the squeeze personally. Why are we risking ~100 people's lives per year to cut our trip length by a couple of minutes?
 
I mean, I spend most of my time in Ontario. After reading this though, my perspective has changed.

National Alignment: Ontario was a lagging outlier. Six other Canadian provinces—including Alberta, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia—have successfully operated with 110 km/h or 120 km/h limits for years.

Just now looking into what driving conditions are actually like in Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and it's incredibly disturbing. Honestly I had no idea.

VWRjO4P.jpeg


pe6jbik.jpeg


aSPbLXn.jpeg


DNj1aN6.jpeg
 
axlsalinger said:
I mean, I spend most of my time in Ontario. After reading this though, my perspective has changed.

National Alignment: Ontario was a lagging outlier. Six other Canadian provinces—including Alberta, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia—have successfully operated with 110 km/h or 120 km/h limits for years.

Just now looking into what driving conditions are actually like in Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and it's incredibly disturbing. Honestly I had no idea.

VWRjO4P.jpeg


pe6jbik.jpeg


aSPbLXn.jpeg


DNj1aN6.jpeg
Click to expand...

iu
 
MindzEye said:
I drive them all the time between 105-110. Speed up to overtake slower traffic in passing lanes, move to the right for people who insist on going fast. It's not nearly as difficult as it's being made out to be and I can assure you, I get there at almost the exact same time as you guys do.

People make bad decisions all of the time, the government shouldn't be enabling those when the impacts are owned by others around us.

This comes down to a really, really simple data point. The closer you get to 120kmh, the risk of fatality starts to sky rocket. When you get meaningfully beyond 120kmh, fatalities become more or less guaranteed. If you know that and choose to ignore it, fine, but there should be penalties for putting everyone else at risk. We shouldn't be rewarding that behaviour by changing policy to enable it.
Click to expand...


In highway traffic that’s not congested, I usually spend most of my time in the center lane, where 115-120 is the speed of the flow of traffic for the most part, except for the occasional slow driver you have to jump into the passing lane to get around.
 
It's been 110 here for quite a few years now.

I don't use the 4 lane highways often, when I do, I set the cruise at 110 and watch almost everyone else fly by me, gotta be doing 130 at least. Rarely do I pass anyone other than the big trucks

Speed limits mean nothing, turn/lane change indicators/mirrors apparently inoperative on many vehicles, tailgaters at high speed when passing, etc., etc.

Also, winter conditions mean nothing to many, they drive like it's July in January. People just don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Routes 1 and 2 here are the only major highways with 2 lanes in each direction province wide and neither of them see traffic like you guys are used to so I can't begin to imagine the idiocy that occurs on your roads.

I'll often take secondary routes if possible to avoid the majority of idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top