BC raised speed limits to 120
02-28-2015, 01:38 AM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
BC raised speed limits to 120
Our BC rennlisters shared this story from National Post with me:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07...s-often-safer/
When B.C. raised speed limits on some highways this week, following the lead of states and provinces across North America, it reflected a growing consensus: faster is often safer.
B.C.’s top limit is now 120 kilometres per hour, the highest in Canada, but provinces from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan have raised some limits to 110 km/h in recent years — in line with trends in the U.S., where speed limits have steadily increased since the mid-90s.
The higher speeds restore limits that were lowered during the 1970s energy crisis in a bid to save fuel, rather than lives.
“There’s certainly skepticism,” B.C. transportation minister Todd Stone admitted Thursday, a day after increasing limits on 1,300 kilometres of rural highway. “But the facts are the facts. When you have motorists all generally moving at the same rate of speed — as opposed to people moving much faster or much slower than the natural flow of speed — you’re going to have a safer corridor.”
Although the RCMP and B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police oppose the change, arguing speed is a factor in many crashes, Mr. Stone and other proponents point to a growing body of research that suggests higher speed limits can actually reduce collisions.
Related
Olivia Chow aims to end pedestrian deaths in Toronto with plan to reduce speed limits in neighbourhoods
Drivers naturally travel at a speed that feels safe and comfortable according to the type of road and weather conditions, regardless of the posted speed, they argue. Imposing a speed limit that is below this instinctual rate means law-abiding drivers disrupt the flow of traffic.
“I think there is a realization that traffic tends to find its own flow. And if you’re going below that, you might be the one posing the safety risk,” said John Bowman, a spokesman with the National Motorists Association, based in the U.S.
“Up until the 1970s, at least in the U.S., interstate highway speed limits were quite high. They were set at 70 to 75 miles per hour [112 km/h to 120 km/h]. That’s what those roads were designed for in the 1950s,”
In the mid-’70s, the energy crisis prompted a slowdown across North America, including Canada, where it coincided with a switch to metric.
“They passed a national maximum speed limit, which was 55 mph and that was done for fuel conservation purposes. Not because there were safety concerns. And that lasted here for approximately 20 years.”
In the ’90s, the U.S. dropped the nationally mandated maximum, allowing individual states to increase speed limits on major thoroughfares, and many have returned to 70 or 75 mph. The result, Mr. Bowman said, is that studies found collisions have been reduced.
Not every province is convinced. Mr. Bowman noted that Ontario, in particular, is notorious for its use of speed traps.
“We keep preserving these political speed limits. Some say it’s because of money,” said Chris Klimek, the founder of Stop 100, an advocacy group urging Ontario to raise its highway speeds. “But it’s also a lack of courage. Politicians don’t have the will or the courage to admit that their own speed limits are incorrect or wrong.”
Mr. Klimek would like to see appropriate stretches of Ontario’s road network rise to 130, arguing that the increase wouldn’t necessarily encourage drivers to push even higher speeds.
They’re not involving the engineers in in setting the speed limits. It shouldn’t be a political decision. It should be completely bi-partisan engineering study
“They’re not involving the engineers in in setting the speed limits,” he said. “It shouldn’t be a political decision. It should be completely bi-partisan engineering study.”
Advocates of increased limits suggest road planners should not abolish all limits, but rather follow something called the 85% principle; set the speed limit at the same speed that the 85th percentile of drivers actually use.
According to this concept, the common sight of an endless string of drivers exceeding the limit is not considered the failure of the driver: rather, it’s an example of an unreasonably conservative speed limit.
“I’m surprised this happened in B.C. before it happened in Ontario,” said Ian Tootill, the founder of SENSE BC, a group that has been pushing for changes to the limit for almost 20 years. “Ontario should be primed for this. They have this tremendous highway system there confined by this arbitrary speed limit of 100 km/h on some of the best highways in the world.”
Mr. Klimek agreed, saying he hoped the B.C. Liberals’ decision inspired their Ontario counterparts.
“Certainly, I understand the concerns relating to speed,” Mr. Stone said. ‘‘But I think what we’re seeing around the world and North America as well is a growing recognition of the fact that it’s not so much speed, in and of itself, that causes collisions, but variations in speed.’’
hmm maybe I should move to BC...what is their track(s) like?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07...s-often-safer/
When B.C. raised speed limits on some highways this week, following the lead of states and provinces across North America, it reflected a growing consensus: faster is often safer.
B.C.’s top limit is now 120 kilometres per hour, the highest in Canada, but provinces from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan have raised some limits to 110 km/h in recent years — in line with trends in the U.S., where speed limits have steadily increased since the mid-90s.
The higher speeds restore limits that were lowered during the 1970s energy crisis in a bid to save fuel, rather than lives.
“There’s certainly skepticism,” B.C. transportation minister Todd Stone admitted Thursday, a day after increasing limits on 1,300 kilometres of rural highway. “But the facts are the facts. When you have motorists all generally moving at the same rate of speed — as opposed to people moving much faster or much slower than the natural flow of speed — you’re going to have a safer corridor.”
Although the RCMP and B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police oppose the change, arguing speed is a factor in many crashes, Mr. Stone and other proponents point to a growing body of research that suggests higher speed limits can actually reduce collisions.
Related
Olivia Chow aims to end pedestrian deaths in Toronto with plan to reduce speed limits in neighbourhoods
Drivers naturally travel at a speed that feels safe and comfortable according to the type of road and weather conditions, regardless of the posted speed, they argue. Imposing a speed limit that is below this instinctual rate means law-abiding drivers disrupt the flow of traffic.
“I think there is a realization that traffic tends to find its own flow. And if you’re going below that, you might be the one posing the safety risk,” said John Bowman, a spokesman with the National Motorists Association, based in the U.S.
“Up until the 1970s, at least in the U.S., interstate highway speed limits were quite high. They were set at 70 to 75 miles per hour [112 km/h to 120 km/h]. That’s what those roads were designed for in the 1950s,”
In the mid-’70s, the energy crisis prompted a slowdown across North America, including Canada, where it coincided with a switch to metric.
“They passed a national maximum speed limit, which was 55 mph and that was done for fuel conservation purposes. Not because there were safety concerns. And that lasted here for approximately 20 years.”
In the ’90s, the U.S. dropped the nationally mandated maximum, allowing individual states to increase speed limits on major thoroughfares, and many have returned to 70 or 75 mph. The result, Mr. Bowman said, is that studies found collisions have been reduced.
Not every province is convinced. Mr. Bowman noted that Ontario, in particular, is notorious for its use of speed traps.
“We keep preserving these political speed limits. Some say it’s because of money,” said Chris Klimek, the founder of Stop 100, an advocacy group urging Ontario to raise its highway speeds. “But it’s also a lack of courage. Politicians don’t have the will or the courage to admit that their own speed limits are incorrect or wrong.”
Mr. Klimek would like to see appropriate stretches of Ontario’s road network rise to 130, arguing that the increase wouldn’t necessarily encourage drivers to push even higher speeds.
They’re not involving the engineers in in setting the speed limits. It shouldn’t be a political decision. It should be completely bi-partisan engineering study
“They’re not involving the engineers in in setting the speed limits,” he said. “It shouldn’t be a political decision. It should be completely bi-partisan engineering study.”
Advocates of increased limits suggest road planners should not abolish all limits, but rather follow something called the 85% principle; set the speed limit at the same speed that the 85th percentile of drivers actually use.
According to this concept, the common sight of an endless string of drivers exceeding the limit is not considered the failure of the driver: rather, it’s an example of an unreasonably conservative speed limit.
“I’m surprised this happened in B.C. before it happened in Ontario,” said Ian Tootill, the founder of SENSE BC, a group that has been pushing for changes to the limit for almost 20 years. “Ontario should be primed for this. They have this tremendous highway system there confined by this arbitrary speed limit of 100 km/h on some of the best highways in the world.”
Mr. Klimek agreed, saying he hoped the B.C. Liberals’ decision inspired their Ontario counterparts.
“Certainly, I understand the concerns relating to speed,” Mr. Stone said. ‘‘But I think what we’re seeing around the world and North America as well is a growing recognition of the fact that it’s not so much speed, in and of itself, that causes collisions, but variations in speed.’’
hmm maybe I should move to BC...what is their track(s) like?
02-28-2015, 10:13 AM
#2
Race Car
I've only ever driven out that area once, and it was in 1994. There were 110 speed limits all through Alberta, but in BC they already had a roadside license suspension program. I got stopped doing 120+ in a temporary 70 zone (didn't see the sign) and the cop told me he could take my license away on the spot for 50 over but didn't because he saw I was only 17 and far from home, and that I'd be screwed. Point is, they were much earlier on the harsh penalties that Ontario was.
02-28-2015, 11:07 AM
#3
Rennlist Member
Ontario will be the last darned place to drop the speed limit and the requirement for front plates.
Well, off to pick up some beer from the government-sanctioned monopoly, some wine from the government owned outlet, and maybe have a cigar on top of a mountain somewhere that has not been regulated yet.
Being Ontario, they need the money. More fines, taxes, "Revenue tools". No expenditure controls.
Well, off to pick up some beer from the government-sanctioned monopoly, some wine from the government owned outlet, and maybe have a cigar on top of a mountain somewhere that has not been regulated yet.
Being Ontario, they need the money. More fines, taxes, "Revenue tools". No expenditure controls.
02-28-2015, 12:25 PM
#6
Don't do it, Danny. The closest reasonable track to Vancouver is 4h south (Ridge Motorsports Park). It's a great track and a lot of fun, but it's in the middle of nowhere and the only events there are single-day ones except for the odd race weekend. There's a reason I've left a car in Ontario to get to Mosport and the other good eastern tracks!
Here's a "quick" flythrough in a Stohr, though:
Here's a "quick" flythrough in a Stohr, though:
02-28-2015, 02:02 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
I've only ever driven out that area once, and it was in 1994. There were 110 speed limits all through Alberta, but in BC they already had a roadside license suspension program. I got stopped doing 120+ in a temporary 70 zone (didn't see the sign) and the cop told me he could take my license away on the spot for 50 over but didn't because he saw I was only 17 and far from home, and that I'd be screwed. Point is, they were much earlier on the harsh penalties that Ontario was.
Trending Topics
02-28-2015, 03:05 PM
#8
Three Wheelin'
Don't do it, Danny. The closest reasonable track to Vancouver is 4h south (Ridge Motorsports Park). It's a great track and a lot of fun, but it's in the middle of nowhere and the only events there are single-day ones except for the odd race weekend. There's a reason I've left a car in Ontario to get to Mosport and the other good eastern tracks!
Here's a "quick" flythrough in a Stohr, though:
Here's a "quick" flythrough in a Stohr, though:
02-28-2015, 03:26 PM
#9
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Vernon BC
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually 40k over the limit and they take your car for minimum of 7 days. All towing, storage costs are yours and on top of the ticket cost which can be over $400 if you're going really fast. You were lucky there are many stories of entire families with small children having been left on the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere and having to call for a taxi from 40+ miles away to get home when the car was impounded. Too many for this to be a fable.
On the other hand, radar detectors and laser jammers are legal in BC...
02-28-2015, 03:52 PM
#10
Drifting
I had a discussion with a lawyer last year in the CTMP paddock and he told me an interesting story on these roadside suspension and towing laws. It all started with him getting into his P car and me telling him to watch it while driving down #20 towards the 401 where Durham like to jump out of bushes with flatbeds parked up the side-road waiting... (FYI: By the Fire Station...)
He says, yeah, I know all about them...
Seems he got nailed on the 407 once and wanted to fight the law with a Charter Challenge but the large firm he works for didn't want the publicity (very conservative firm mainly into boring Bay St law) so he had to let it go. But he did tell me one thing that was interesting; he said there are more then a few lawyers who have been nailed and towed and that many were all set to do a Charter Challenge when they hear (suspiciously through court officials) that Ontario has a 'super team' of prosecutors that can be assembled that they use to substitute over the local prosecutor when it comes to their case...
I've heard this same story now from two different lawyers, (one who got nailed near Sarnia). Seems that the general consensus is that the Government is loath for this 'property seizure' law to make it out of Ontario and into Federal Court so they throw a lot of assets at people with Law Union membership who submit a not guilty plea. The scenario bandied about (in courtroom hallways) is a 'max penalty' under the law is the goal so as to 'set an example' for someone whom is an 'officer of the court'.
To date no one seems to want to spend the time, money or risk taking a highway traffic offense out of Ontario into Federal Court. Many lawyers believe instant property seizure by the very person whom will be testifying against you in court is outside of the Charter.
You cannot undo the damage of wrongful seizure and inconvenience here. We've seen this with the unlawful and criminal Peel Officer convicted of conspiring with towing companies and which was very quietly dealt with a little while ago and where hundreds of 50 over charges were wiped off the books - one of these charges concerned a member here on this forum.
The only way this unconstitutional law (IMHO) will be turned over is if someone like Robert Herjavec gets nailed in one of his cars and decides to take them on, because THAT is the level resources needed to fight what is a non-criminal code, personal property seizure law where Government mandarins believe your rights are of little concern to them. We have allowed the State to supplement a Judge and decide that the 'accuser' can levy an 'instant' penalty. Nice...
He says, yeah, I know all about them...
Seems he got nailed on the 407 once and wanted to fight the law with a Charter Challenge but the large firm he works for didn't want the publicity (very conservative firm mainly into boring Bay St law) so he had to let it go. But he did tell me one thing that was interesting; he said there are more then a few lawyers who have been nailed and towed and that many were all set to do a Charter Challenge when they hear (suspiciously through court officials) that Ontario has a 'super team' of prosecutors that can be assembled that they use to substitute over the local prosecutor when it comes to their case...
I've heard this same story now from two different lawyers, (one who got nailed near Sarnia). Seems that the general consensus is that the Government is loath for this 'property seizure' law to make it out of Ontario and into Federal Court so they throw a lot of assets at people with Law Union membership who submit a not guilty plea. The scenario bandied about (in courtroom hallways) is a 'max penalty' under the law is the goal so as to 'set an example' for someone whom is an 'officer of the court'.
To date no one seems to want to spend the time, money or risk taking a highway traffic offense out of Ontario into Federal Court. Many lawyers believe instant property seizure by the very person whom will be testifying against you in court is outside of the Charter.
You cannot undo the damage of wrongful seizure and inconvenience here. We've seen this with the unlawful and criminal Peel Officer convicted of conspiring with towing companies and which was very quietly dealt with a little while ago and where hundreds of 50 over charges were wiped off the books - one of these charges concerned a member here on this forum.
The only way this unconstitutional law (IMHO) will be turned over is if someone like Robert Herjavec gets nailed in one of his cars and decides to take them on, because THAT is the level resources needed to fight what is a non-criminal code, personal property seizure law where Government mandarins believe your rights are of little concern to them. We have allowed the State to supplement a Judge and decide that the 'accuser' can levy an 'instant' penalty. Nice...
02-28-2015, 07:41 PM
#11
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Vernon BC
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a discussion with a lawyer last year in the CTMP paddock and he told me an interesting story on these roadside suspension and towing laws. It all started with him getting into his P car and me telling him to watch it while driving down #20 towards the 401 where Durham like to jump out of bushes with flatbeds parked up the side-road waiting... (FYI: By the Fire Station...)
He says, yeah, I know all about them...
Seems he got nailed on the 407 once and wanted to fight the law with a Charter Challenge but the large firm he works for didn't want the publicity (very conservative firm mainly into boring Bay St law) so he had to let it go. But he did tell me one thing that was interesting; he said there are more then a few lawyers who have been nailed and towed and that many were all set to do a Charter Challenge when they hear (suspiciously through court officials) that Ontario has a 'super team' of prosecutors that can be assembled that they use to substitute over the local prosecutor when it comes to their case...
I've heard this same story now from two different lawyers, (one who got nailed near Sarnia). Seems that the general consensus is that the Government is loath for this 'property seizure' law to make it out of Ontario and into Federal Court so they throw a lot of assets at people with Law Union membership who submit a not guilty plea. The scenario bandied about (in courtroom hallways) is a 'max penalty' under the law is the goal so as to 'set an example' for someone whom is an 'officer of the court'.
To date no one seems to want to spend the time, money or risk taking a highway traffic offense out of Ontario into Federal Court. Many lawyers believe instant property seizure by the very person whom will be testifying against you in court is outside of the Charter.
You cannot undo the damage of wrongful seizure and inconvenience here. We've seen this with the unlawful and criminal Peel Officer convicted of conspiring with towing companies and which was very quietly dealt with a little while ago and where hundreds of 50 over charges were wiped off the books - one of these charges concerned a member here on this forum.
The only way this unconstitutional law (IMHO) will be turned over is if someone like Robert Herjavec gets nailed in one of his cars and decides to take them on, because THAT is the level resources needed to fight what is a non-criminal code, personal property seizure law where Government mandarins believe your rights are of little concern to them. We have allowed the State to supplement a Judge and decide that the 'accuser' can levy an 'instant' penalty. Nice...
He says, yeah, I know all about them...
Seems he got nailed on the 407 once and wanted to fight the law with a Charter Challenge but the large firm he works for didn't want the publicity (very conservative firm mainly into boring Bay St law) so he had to let it go. But he did tell me one thing that was interesting; he said there are more then a few lawyers who have been nailed and towed and that many were all set to do a Charter Challenge when they hear (suspiciously through court officials) that Ontario has a 'super team' of prosecutors that can be assembled that they use to substitute over the local prosecutor when it comes to their case...
I've heard this same story now from two different lawyers, (one who got nailed near Sarnia). Seems that the general consensus is that the Government is loath for this 'property seizure' law to make it out of Ontario and into Federal Court so they throw a lot of assets at people with Law Union membership who submit a not guilty plea. The scenario bandied about (in courtroom hallways) is a 'max penalty' under the law is the goal so as to 'set an example' for someone whom is an 'officer of the court'.
To date no one seems to want to spend the time, money or risk taking a highway traffic offense out of Ontario into Federal Court. Many lawyers believe instant property seizure by the very person whom will be testifying against you in court is outside of the Charter.
You cannot undo the damage of wrongful seizure and inconvenience here. We've seen this with the unlawful and criminal Peel Officer convicted of conspiring with towing companies and which was very quietly dealt with a little while ago and where hundreds of 50 over charges were wiped off the books - one of these charges concerned a member here on this forum.
The only way this unconstitutional law (IMHO) will be turned over is if someone like Robert Herjavec gets nailed in one of his cars and decides to take them on, because THAT is the level resources needed to fight what is a non-criminal code, personal property seizure law where Government mandarins believe your rights are of little concern to them. We have allowed the State to supplement a Judge and decide that the 'accuser' can levy an 'instant' penalty. Nice...
Certainly a legal argument could be made that impounding your car for 7 days constitutes property seizure without due process. I'd be interested to hear an opinion on that from one or more of the lawyers on the board.
I'm reminded of BC's roadside suspension law for suspicion of impaired driving which the courts struck down a couple of years ago. The law placed the officer at the scene in the role of judge and jury with no due process or avenue for appeal. I have to wonder if roadside impounding of a vehicle for speeding crosses a similar legal threshold.
03-01-2015, 11:56 AM
#12
Drifting
I'm reminded of BC's roadside suspension law for suspicion of impaired driving which the courts struck down a couple of years ago. The law placed the officer at the scene in the role of judge and jury with no due process or avenue for appeal. I have to wonder if roadside impounding of a vehicle for speeding crosses a similar legal threshold.
With the '50 over laws', (high speed driving) we are only dealing with the Highway Traffic Act...
The police already have tools to deal with extreme driving - say the idiot in BC on his sport-bike doing over 300kph - section 249 charge for Dangerous Driving, (Criminal Code).
Speaking with my brother-in law whom recently retired from Metro he stated that there was nothing in the former HTA (before the 50 over & stunting addition) that the Act already didn't deal with. The tools were always, stop -summons-court date. The courts always had the option of impound, fine and drivers suspension. These new additions to the Act didn't add anything to these tools except for the fact that it took some of these actions out of a courtroom and put them at the roadside. You can thank the worst OPP commissioner in Ontario's history (and worst Veterans Affairs Minster) for these abuses. 'Might is Right'. (TM)
This law is the equivalent to a G20 'police action', only at the roadside. We are slowly moving away from a world where you have rights and freedoms to a world where Governmental groups (police) TELL you your rights.
If I'm going to experience a property seizure - I sure as hell don't want a high school graduate whom spent 3 months at police collage in Aylmer Ontario deciding if I get to keep my property.
I have no problem with being stopped by police for speeding, but I have a REAL problem where I receive an intimidate summary penalty based upon faulty equipment or OPINION.
Full disclosure: I've never been stopped for 50 over.
03-01-2015, 12:17 PM
#13
Burning Brakes
Yes, detectors are legal but jammers/switcher technically not as they transmit a signal and thus are subject to laws around any radio transmission device. At a PCA seminar last year we were told about a P Car driver who got pulled over and ticketed under those regulations.
03-01-2015, 01:19 PM
#14
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Vernon BC
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, detectors are legal but jammers/switcher technically not as they transmit a signal and thus are subject to laws around any radio transmission device. At a PCA seminar last year we were told about a P Car driver who got pulled over and ticketed under those regulations.
As I said, radar detectors and laser jammers are legal here.
Radar jammers are illegal in BC as they emit a signal in a portion of the EM spectrum which is regulated.
Laser jammers are not illegal. They emit light in the same range as an onboard parking sensor or constant-distance cruise control unit. (In fact, many have a secondary function as a parking sensor.) However, police may choose to recommend charges against a user for obstruction of a police officer during the conduct of his duty. I don't know if any such charges have been laid in BC or how the courts have handled any such cases. From what I've been able to find there appears to be some difference of legal opinion on whether or not deployment of a device which prevents an officer from taking a speed measurement for 2-3 seconds (while the driver slows down and shuts off the device) constitutes obstruction of the police officer, since the driver was unaware of the presence of the officer when he deployed the device. It's also questionable how the courts would view a criminal code prosecution for a traffic-related offence which is not illegal under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Last edited by Donster; 03-02-2015 at 02:04 AM.
03-01-2015, 07:04 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Not quite correct.
As I said, radar detectors and laser jammers are legal here.
Radar jammers are illegal in BC as they emit emit a signal in a portion of the EM spectrum which is regulated.
Laser jammers are not illegal. They emit light in the same range as an onboard parking sensor or constant-distance cruise control unit. (In fact, many have a secondary function as a parking sensor.) However, police may choose to recommend charges against a user for obstruction of a police officer during the conduct of his duty. I don't know if any such charges have been laid in BC or how the courts have handled any such cases. From what I've been able to find there appears to be some difference of legal opinion on whether or not deployment of a device which prevents an officer from taking a speed measurement for 2-3 seconds (while the driver slows down and shuts off the device) constitutes obstruction of the police officer, since the driver was unaware of the presence of the officer when he deployed the device. It's also questionable how the courts would view a criminal code prosecution for a traffic-related offence which is not illegal under the Motor Vehicle Act.
As I said, radar detectors and laser jammers are legal here.
Radar jammers are illegal in BC as they emit emit a signal in a portion of the EM spectrum which is regulated.
Laser jammers are not illegal. They emit light in the same range as an onboard parking sensor or constant-distance cruise control unit. (In fact, many have a secondary function as a parking sensor.) However, police may choose to recommend charges against a user for obstruction of a police officer during the conduct of his duty. I don't know if any such charges have been laid in BC or how the courts have handled any such cases. From what I've been able to find there appears to be some difference of legal opinion on whether or not deployment of a device which prevents an officer from taking a speed measurement for 2-3 seconds (while the driver slows down and shuts off the device) constitutes obstruction of the police officer, since the driver was unaware of the presence of the officer when he deployed the device. It's also questionable how the courts would view a criminal code prosecution for a traffic-related offence which is not illegal under the Motor Vehicle Act.