Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Road and Highway Discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(05-05-2019, 06:20 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest fears I have right now stem from the fact I have zero faith in our government to make good decisions.
This.
I believe that Australia does automated enforcement like ijmorlan suggests. Can't see the Ontario government doing it.

And I think that studies show that if you increase to X people drive like 120% of X.
I believe the speed cameras in France and England have a very low tolerance beyond the limit, like <5 kph/mph. That should be the same here if we went that direction.

Ideally it'd be variable limits based on weather, volume, time, etc... But again, Dumpster Fire is going to be Dumpster Fire.
(05-05-2019, 06:20 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-05-2019, 05:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]And an end to the idea that it is somehow “blocking traffic” if I’m hanging out in the left lane at a speed for which theoretically I could be ticketed hundreds of dollars in speeding fines.

Current practice seems to validate that traffic moving smoothly at 120km/h is OK; but an increase in the limit to 120km/h shouldn’t mean that now everybody starts going 140km/h.

Maybe we could combine tolling with ubiquitous speed enforcement: install 407-style tolling on all 4xx highways, and have a surcharge for going faster than 120km/h between entrance and exit. We would need a more rigorous approach to unidentifiable cars, however.

I’m honestly not sure how serious I am about these ideas.

There are two things that are only somewhat connected being discussed, the speed of travel, and the speed limit.

I don't care as much about the speed limit as I do about the speed of travel. If the change to the speed limit was made without changing the speed of travel, then I probably don't care.

I highly suspect that increasing the speed limit to 120 would result in the speed of travel increasing to ~135, which would have a resulting increase in fuel consumption, death, and destruction.  I strongly oppose that.

Increasing the speed limit without increasing the speeds would require substantial enforcement, and I suspect I'd see pigs fly before Ontarian drivers accept the idea of automated enforcement on the highway, or the tax increase needed to fund pervasive live enforcement.

The biggest fears I have right now stem from the fact I have zero faith in our government to make good decisions.
I travel frequently through the United States. Their speed limits on most thruways are already 120 km/h and traffic flows seemlessly. You don't want to go much more than 15 km over the limit or you will get a ticket. Also. Remember that in the 70's. The speed limit was 70 mph or 120 kmh . It was never a real issue. Yes I know there is more traffic now. I drive about 50 000km a year mostly on highways. The issue isn't speed. The issue is people thinking they can get ahead faster by unsafe passes or lane changes.
(05-05-2019, 07:45 PM)timio Wrote: [ -> ]I believe the speed cameras in France and England have a very low tolerance beyond the limit,  like <5 kph/mph.  That should be the same here if we went that direction.

Ideally it'd be variable limits based on weather, volume, time, etc... But again, Dumpster Fire is going to be Dumpster Fire.

UK does variable speed limits, based primarily on weather and traffic volumes. When driving on the M25 (world's largest car park, as the locals say …) you really need to pay attention to the changing speed limits, unless your car does it for you. And, yes, the allowable margin is quite small. The infrastructure for the variable speed limits does increase costs, though, at least the way the UK does them.

They additionally do maximum average speed in special cases, such as construction zones.

The right way to do photo radar is the way most of Europe does it, with camera boxes scattered liberally by the roadsides, but only some of them active at any given time. The photo radar vans we had in the distant past were a crutch.
(05-05-2019, 08:17 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-05-2019, 06:20 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]There are two things that are only somewhat connected being discussed, the speed of travel, and the speed limit.

I don't care as much about the speed limit as I do about the speed of travel. If the change to the speed limit was made without changing the speed of travel, then I probably don't care.

I highly suspect that increasing the speed limit to 120 would result in the speed of travel increasing to ~135, which would have a resulting increase in fuel consumption, death, and destruction.  I strongly oppose that.

Increasing the speed limit without increasing the speeds would require substantial enforcement, and I suspect I'd see pigs fly before Ontarian drivers accept the idea of automated enforcement on the highway, or the tax increase needed to fund pervasive live enforcement.

The biggest fears I have right now stem from the fact I have zero faith in our government to make good decisions.
I travel frequently through the United States. Their speed limits on most thruways are already 120 km/h and traffic flows seemlessly. You don't want to go much more than 15 km over the limit or you will get a ticket. Also. Remember that in the 70's. The speed limit was 70 mph or 120 kmh . It was never a real issue. Yes I know there is more traffic now. I drive about 50 000km a year mostly on highways. The issue isn't speed. The issue is people thinking they can get ahead faster by unsafe passes or lane changes.

So, 120km/h + 15km/h = ~135, which is what I said.

And yes, higher speeds absolutely makes crashes more deadly.  This is basic science science, yes, dangerous drivers ARE a problem, but higher speeds exasperate that problem, you have less time to react and more harm in the event of a crash.

A higher travel speed won't change those drivers who want to get ahead and make unsafe passes, all that will change is that those passes will be more likely to go wrong, and more harmful when they do.

And yes, I know US highways have higher speeds.  And yes, the "flow" just fine, but they have higher collision rates.  Europe is a better comparison, since they have higher limits, but also usually safer roads.  The differences are, that they enforce their limits far more strongly (you won't be going 15km/h or more over the limit in most countries) but you only need to listen to the rhetoric around any discussion of automated enforcement here to understand we will never do the same level of enforcement here. And second, their drivers are far better trained...here, driving is treated like a right by most, so the idea of taking away a license is hard to stomach, we will never have good drivers so long as that belief pervades.

Increasing speeds will increase harm, it won't necessarily mean the road doesn't function any more, but I'm sick and tired of our road system optimizing for getting people moving slightly faster at the tiny cost of more loss of life.  You'll note that our road safety was worse in the 70's, yes there are many reasons for this, but higher speeds are likely one of those reasons.

The other consideration comes from the 70s as well, which is fuel economy, higher speeds use more fuel per km. The speed limit was lowered in the 70's to save fuel, that need is even greater now than it was in the 70s.
I’d be interested to know if the 400 series highways actually demonstrate that property of drivers going a general percentage over the speed limit.  Only because I don’t think I’ve ever experienced highways elsewhere where the conventional practice is to exceed the speed limit so much.  

But yeah, photo radar would be my preference for combining with a speed limit increase.  Photo radar tickets set for like 125/130 km/h.  Speed limit set at 120.  Increased enforcement for drivers not moving over when they should.  

I think that would be a significant safer and more pleasant driving experience.

It’s not happening though.
(05-05-2019, 08:46 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-05-2019, 08:17 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: [ -> ]I travel frequently through the United States. Their speed limits on most thruways are already 120 km/h and traffic flows seemlessly. You don't want to go much more than 15 km over the limit or you will get a ticket. Also. Remember that in the 70's. The speed limit was 70 mph or 120 kmh . It was never a real issue. Yes I know there is more traffic now. I drive about 50 000km a year mostly on highways. The issue isn't speed. The issue is people thinking they can get ahead faster by unsafe passes or lane changes.

So, 120km/h + 15km/h = ~135, which is what I said.

And yes, higher speeds absolutely makes crashes more deadly.  This is basic science science, yes, dangerous drivers ARE a problem, but higher speeds exasperate that problem, you have less time to react and more harm in the event of a crash.

A higher travel speed won't change those drivers who want to get ahead and make unsafe passes, all that will change is that those passes will be more likely to go wrong, and more harmful when they do.

And yes, I know US highways have higher speeds.  And yes, the "flow" just fine, but they have higher collision rates.  Europe is a better comparison, since they have higher limits, but also usually safer roads.  The differences are, that they enforce their limits far more strongly (you won't be going 15km/h or more over the limit in most countries) but you only need to listen to the rhetoric around any discussion of automated enforcement here to understand we will never do the same level of enforcement here. And second, their drivers are far better trained...here, driving is treated like a right by most, so the idea of taking away a license is hard to stomach, we will never have good drivers so long as that belief pervades.

Increasing speeds will increase harm, it won't necessarily mean the road doesn't function any more, but I'm sick and tired of our road system optimizing for getting people moving slightly faster at the tiny cost of more loss of life.  You'll note that our road safety was worse in the 70's, yes there are many reasons for this, but higher speeds are likely one of those reasons.

The other consideration comes from the 70s as well, which is fuel economy, higher speeds use more fuel per km. The speed limit was lowered in the 70's to save fuel, that need is even greater now than it was in the 70s.

Can you please qualify your expertise in this area. You seem to speak like you are an expert in the area of accident investigations.
First result from a search on speed limit accident rate:
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prev...eed_en.pdf

Relevant data from BC and increased limits on some of their highways: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fatal-crashes-doub...-1.4128985
(05-06-2019, 05:52 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]First result from a search on speed limit accident rate:
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prev...eed_en.pdf

Relevant data from BC and increased limits on some of their highways: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fatal-crashes-doub...-1.4128985

Most of the time we talk about city speeds, not highway speeds. Highways are pretty safe. But the data do seem to show that higher speeds are more dangerous even on highways. The IIHS is pretty pro-car and even they say so.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car...362291002/
I'm reluctant to put a lot of confidence in the IIHS study. First, we're talking about changing the official speed limit, not actually increasing the 401 speeds. And better enforcement to reduce large speed differentials (which I think are worse than the absolute speed in itself).

Quote:The study concluded that a 5 mph increase in the speed limit causes an 8% increase in death rates on interstates and freeways. It causes a 3% increase in deaths on other roads.

Also, given the huge variations in enforcement, use of radar detectors and driving habits from state to state, I don't know how valuable their data really is.
(05-06-2019, 10:33 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm reluctant to put a lot of confidence in the IIHS study. First, we're talking about changing the official speed limit, not actually increasing the 401 speeds. And better enforcement to reduce large speed differentials (which I think are worse than the absolute speed in itself).

Quote:The study concluded that a 5 mph increase in the speed limit causes an 8% increase in death rates on interstates and freeways. It causes a 3% increase in deaths on other roads.

Also, given the huge variations in enforcement, use of radar detectors and driving habits from state to state, I don't know how valuable their data really is.

Are you saying you don't believe increasing the speed limit on the 401 will increase the speeds?

The reality is we will not get photo enforcement, nor sufficient police enforcement to actually enforce speed limits. Any discussion of actual policy must accept that this is not part of the plan.
(05-06-2019, 02:27 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-06-2019, 10:33 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm reluctant to put a lot of confidence in the IIHS study. First, we're talking about changing the official speed limit, not actually increasing the 401 speeds. And better enforcement to reduce large speed differentials (which I think are worse than the absolute speed in itself).


Also, given the huge variations in enforcement, use of radar detectors and driving habits from state to state, I don't know how valuable their data really is.

Are you saying you don't believe increasing the speed limit on the 401 will increase the speeds?

The reality is we will not get photo enforcement, nor sufficient police enforcement to actually enforce speed limits. Any discussion of actual policy must accept that this is not part of the plan.

With same enforcement level, it likely would increase speeds. But we were proposing a speed limit increase with effective enforcement. Since this is completely hypothetical, I think it's a valid proposal. Smile
I think it’s very unclear what the effect of raising the speed limit on something like the 401.  Like I said earlier I don’t know of many highways that already have commonly accepted and practiced speeding of 20-30% over the limit.  

I will also admit that I’m ok with some amount of decreased safety for general increased convenience. Whether this particular change would be worth it would definitely require more information.
(05-06-2019, 02:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-06-2019, 02:27 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying you don't believe increasing the speed limit on the 401 will increase the speeds?

The reality is we will not get photo enforcement, nor sufficient police enforcement to actually enforce speed limits. Any discussion of actual policy must accept that this is not part of the plan.

With same enforcement level, it likely would increase speeds. But we were proposing a speed limit increase with effective enforcement. Since this is completely hypothetical, I think it's a valid proposal. Smile

I agree in principle, but this is not hypothetical, this is being investigated, and may actually be implemented.  And I'm about 100% certain that enforcement will not increase in practice.