|
Don't Raise Highway Speed Limits  A rant by: Anonymous The provincial government's proposal to raise speed limits to 110 kmh on selected divided 4-lane highways is a bad idea regardless of what the practice is in other North American jurisdictions. It might be OK if the highways here were up to 21st Century standards, but all one needs to do is cross the US border at Emerson/Pembina and take a quick look and ride on I-29. Then he should try to find anything like it in Manitoba, and he'll understand why our counterparts are strictly 2nd or even 3rd rate. In fact, even the provinces with the best highways in Canada have little to compare with the US Interstate system or the German autobahns. Add to this fact that too many drivers are being distracted by cellphones, beverage holders, CD players, etc. and higher speeds are exactly what we don't need, especially when hazardous driving conditions can affect us for as much as half the year. Drivers will exceed the posted limits most of the time anyway. During the late 1970s, the American government, in a effort to conserve energy in the wake of the initial oil price shocks, instituted 55 mph limits. Studies soon revealed that the average speed on the Interstates was 66 mph; i.e., 20% above the limit. Today when 65 or 70 is the typical limit, the average is 77. Chances are excellent that similar studies in this country would yield the same results. Vehicles where 100 is posted are usually going 105-110 or about 5-10% over. As soon as the bar is raised to 110, the 5-10% rule will apply again, and before we know it, 120 will be the norm and so on. Most people may not care to admit it, but their driving skills and reaction times are geared to half those speeds. So what we're doing is setting them up for even more serious accidents causing greater damage and more extensive injuries. In addition, if the province claims it's really concerned about the environment, it shouldn't make any changes at all. Higher speeds equal increased fuel consumption which in turn leads to more pollution. Meanwhile the drivers who are pushing for 110 kmh are usually the first to complain about higher gas prices. Yet with higher speeds, they'll take a double hit: more at the pump and lower fuel economy. << Back Add a Comment Comments ( Add a Comment ) Anonymous says: 2006-07-10 22:41:08 So does this mean all the old "kouts" that drive slow as it is, can drive 10 kmh's even slower than before? Anonymous says: 2006-07-22 16:44:24 as a traveler between saskatoon and winnipeg quite often, i must say, i have not seen more accidents on 4 lane hiways in saskatchewan going 120-125... i for one am not opposed to higher speed limits Anonymous says: 2006-07-23 22:06:32 I agree with increasing it even to 20 Kmh's. Maybe some of the "old people" will realize to not drive on the highways anymore and hangup their drivers licences. So attention "old people" you are no longer welcome on the highways. You are the causes of accidents on the highways because us young "punks" go much too fast to pass you on the highways after travelling 10 Kmh's going 80 Kmh's. BigB says: 2006-07-24 10:35:57 I am sure there are alot of senior citizens loging on to winnipegrant.com...jack ass. The old ppl aren't the cause of the accidents, the problem is the morons that think they have to pass someone bcs they are going 2kms slower then they'd like so they try to pass cars at speeds they are not capable of controlling their vehicle at or drive right into oncoming traffic. If everyone drove like old people we would have alot fewer highway accidents and the accidents that would happen wouldnt be as severe. -# btw moderator, what happened to my post on taxicabs? Rigel says: 2006-09-21 16:13:08 No doubt many readers of Rant saw the editorial in last weekend's (Sept. 16) Free Press condemning the fact that Winnipeg is the only major city in Canada without at least one genuine limited-access freeway. The article can also be found on the Frontier Institute's website. I've driven in a variety of North American cities that are Winnipeg's size including Grand Rapids, Mich.; Omaha, Neb.; Toledo, Ohio; Tucson, Ariz.; and Bakersfield, Cal.; and for bad roads we've got them all beat. The Perimeter Highway, which is supposed to be a high-speed route succeeds in certain places like at the cloverleafs at Main, McPhillips, and Highway #7, but it's still a long way from a true freeway because there are numerous light-controlled intersections and plenty of secondary roads plus a few rail crossings where vehicles can sneak across or trains can bring traffic to a complete halt. Studies have shown that high-speed, limited-access routes are not only safer but reduce fuel consumption and pollution because vehicles operate more efficiently in top gear. The provincial government collects $562 million annually from drivers in the form of fees and taxes; yet it spends only $160 million, or 28% of it, on new highway construction and maintenance. So motorists are getting the shaft in several ways: poor roads causing more wear and tear on their vehicles, unsafe conditions made even worse during the winter months, and reduced gas mileage because of the lack of proper routes that keep traffic flowing smoothly. So next time there's an election, ask your local candidate what his party intends to do about the situation, and don't let him/her feed you the line of BS that we have to deal with social programs first. Motorists have been propping up such programs for too long already, but they're still getting shafted every time they start their engines. Keepitreal says: 2007-07-27 14:25:08 Everything would be solved when foggies >65 take a yearly eye exam. Then you'll see less accidents. Rigel says: 2007-08-04 16:17:17 It's not just elderly drivers who hold up traffic; it's also people that drive "stunned". Just this morning at the intersection of McPhillips & Leila I was behind a woman in a van who was so clued-out that she missed, not one, but two, left-turn signals. She was so busy babbling away to her passengers that she might as well have been in her living-room. Then when she finally got moving, she was well below the speed limit. On another occasion, I was travelling west on Ness a few blocks past Sturgeon Road when the guy I was following came to a full stop at a flashing amber light. Recently on Hwy. 15 between Dugald and the Perimeter I, plus several others, were caught behind some character pulling a trailer that couldn't manage anything faster than 80 kph in a 100 zone. A 4th incident occurred on Hwy. #8 for several miles north of the point where it becomes divided. A number of vehicles were following some clown on a motorcycle who didn't have either the brains or the coutesy to pull onto the shoulder because he was going no faster than 80 also in a 100. In all these cases, the drivers weren't seniors; they were just stunned drivers who shouldn't even be on the road because they can't keep their minds on their driving or don't seem aware of the basic rules of the road. As for the seniors, people should always be aware of cars like Buick Centuries, Mercury Marquises, Ford Crown Victorias and other large vehicles because they often have seniors driving and need to be given wide berths. One other thing: always beware of a car driven by a person wearing a fedora. Rigel says: 2007-10-25 20:03:47 Now that it looks that the province will give the green light to 110 kmh speed limits on 4-lane divided highways, I don't want to repeat all the arguments against the move since this site has already covered all the bases on the issue. However, what I'd like to see is proper enforcement of this speed. At 100, the police would almost always let drivers get away with an extra 10 kmh. Unfortunately I've encountered plenty of donkeys who were doing well-over that much and seen very few pulled over. Raising the limit to 110 will just be a signal to many that 120+ is OK and there will be no shortage of those hitting over 130. Let's remember that the 4-laners in Manitoba and in most of Canada have little in common with the US Interstates that allow drivers to travel the 3000 mi. from Boston to Seattle, for example, without encountering a single stop light or level highway or rail crossing. So if 110 is to be the new limit, the police shouldn't allow more than 115 before they start dishing out tickets because too many of the speeders will still travel at 110 or better regardless of road conditions, and when they're drunk, stoned or both, it'll be the equivalent of giving a 3-year old a loaded pistol. |
|
110 is closer to the actual speed driven on the highways. Here is the study that shows what happens when you match the limit to the speed most divers travel at.http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html Crashes go down, not up.