News   Nov 12, 2024
 712     1 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 521     1 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 626     0 

Roads: Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

For years I've been driving 117 km/h, the "real speed limit" stated by Jim Kenzie on one of the Motoring shows, which apparently was told to him by an OPP officer. However, lately I've been realizing how much more efficient it is to drive closer to 100 km/h, and have been attempting to slow down when I'm not late or in a hurry. Slowing down to 100 km/h on my last trip to Quebec City made my 40 L fillup last the whole 800 km trip, rather than the more typical 600 km I usually see from 40 L. (2011 Chevy Cruze Eco manual)

Same here, I save about 1 L/100 km in my new Corolla by driving 105 to 110 on the highway. Meaning every fillup is saving me roughly 6 L at $1.30 per L is roughly $8 per fillup. So I figure every eighth fillup is free.
 
Fair enough... Those wishing to drive BELOW the new limit (remember - this is still legal! Yet hardly practised due to outrageously unrealistic current speed limit) would be perfectly fine staying in the slower lane and cruising with the trucks regulated at 105km/h. A higher speed limit does not mean people have to drive at or above it! As long as lane courtesy is obeyed and left lane kept open for those wishing to travel faster, such varying speeds are perfectly fine. Not just in Ontario, but around the rest of the world as well (trucks in many countries are frequently permitted to travel at much lower speeds that cars and slower cars can certainly use that lane as well).

www.stop100.ca
 
Most automobiles are designed for a cruising speed of 80± km/h where the engine and gears is at its most efficient for mileage. That is also where the top gear or overdrive is. Above that speed, there are no more gears to shift up to and one just revs up the engine for more speed, but in the process uses more fuel.

If you have a tachometer on your dashboard, even on an automatic transmission, try to note where it shifts down as you cruise slowly up.
 
Stop driving Grandma!

Nice! So the only opinions that count are ones you agree with? For the record, it would be a biological impossibility for me to be a Grandma and when I drive I drive the speed limit......when the flow of traffic allows. Which is not that often really (around the GTA.

I actually prefer an approach like they use around London where the vary the speed limit according to volume/accidents/weather.......failing that, I think traffic around here would flow better with a 90 km per hour limit.

In the end, though, I agree with the notion that enforcement is key. No matter what you set your limit at, people will assume there is a 10-15 kmh allowed buffer before you get a ticket......so a 120 limit begets 130 speeds just as surely as the current limit begets 115 speeds.
 
Last edited:
Nice! So the only opinions that count are ones you agree with? For the record, it would be a biological impossibility for me to be a Grandma and when I drive I drive the speed limit......when the flow of traffic allows. Which is not that often really (around the GTA.

I actually prefer an approach like they use around London where the vary the speed limit according to volume/accidents/weather.......failing that, I think traffic around here would flow better with a 90 km per hour limit.

In the end, though, I agree with the notion that enforcement is key. No matter what you set your limit at, people will assume there is a 10-15 kmh allowed buffer before you get a ticket......so a 120 limit begets 130 speeds just as surely as the current limit begets 115 speeds.
It was a joke. You are right 120km would beget 130km. That's why the proposal is 130 because no one is driving 140-150k unless they want to die.
 
Nice! So the only opinions that count are ones you agree with? For the record, it would be a biological impossibility for me to be a Grandma and when I drive I drive the speed limit......when the flow of traffic allows. Which is not that often really (around the GTA.

I actually prefer an approach like they use around London where the vary the speed limit according to volume/accidents/weather.......failing that, I think traffic around here would flow better with a 90 km per hour limit.

In the end, though, I agree with the notion that enforcement is key. No matter what you set your limit at, people will assume there is a 10-15 kmh allowed buffer before you get a ticket......so a 120 limit begets 130 speeds just as surely as the current limit begets 115 speeds.

I have to repeat it again.

Why are so many saying that transit experts should decide whether subway or LRT should be built, but everyone is happy with politicians setting speed limits. I am sure you would have a much harder time finding a Traffic Engineer endorsing a 100 km/h than to find a transit expert endorsing subway.
 
Most automobiles are designed for a cruising speed of 80± km/h where the engine and gears is at its most efficient for mileage. That is also where the top gear or overdrive is. Above that speed, there are no more gears to shift up to and one just revs up the engine for more speed, but in the process uses more fuel.
Most automatic transmissions shift into top gear at 40 or 45 KMH, pressure on the gas pedal for more power results in a downshift to a lower gear at this speed. 6 speed transmissions are becoming the norm, they are much more efficient because of their ability to match power requirements to economical engine revolutions.

My previous car's engine turned 2,000 RPM at 100 KMH with a 4 speed automatic transmission, my current car with a 6 speed automatic requires only 1,500 RPM at the same speed and delivers much better mileage with a larger engine. The car still downshifts when more power is needed but it drops to a closer ratio gear.

Recent tests on my car in speed control mode: The vertical contour of the route is a factor, more hills=more downshifts=less efficiency.
110 KMH -- 1700 RPM --- 8.6L/100KMH (32.8MPG)
100 KMH -- 1550 RPM --- 8.0L/100KMH (35.3MPG)
90 KMH -- 1400 RPM --- 7.9L/100KMH (35.7MPG)
Test vehicle, Dodge Caravan full size mini-van (is that an oxymoron) 4.0 Litre V6, 6 speed automatic. Driving at 90 KMH does yield marginally better fuel consumption stats but is also more dangerous on 2 lane roads since you invite other motorists to overtake you sometimes in less than optimum locations. In short, you become a hazard.
 
Last edited:
While I do support raising the speed limit, I will admit it is nice to see my ScanGauge read 5.xL/100km (40+MPG US) after doing an extended highway drive going 100km/h (IN THE RIGHT LANE!).

A few years back I was coming back from Windsor and there were so few cars around I decided to do 90km/h for a bit. Think my overall fuel economy from that trip was under 5L/100km (47+MPG US). For those of you keeping track at home, this is well into hybrid territory!

The car is a 2001 Toyota Echo (precursor to the Yaris).
 
I understand well enough the concepts behind fuel economy but i have to say, my 4.7L V8 gets better mileage going 140 at 2500rpm over a greater distance than being stuck in the daily commute at 110kph at 1700 rpm. What I'm saying is the real problem with fuel efficiency is traffic.
I have a question for the naysayers. Have you ever driven one of these highways at 140 or over? To me, 140 just my natural and comfortable cruising speed so i don't understand the doom and gloom hypothesis some of you present. Better would be to get all those drivers who are scared of driving the highways to stay off them....they're the real danger.
 
They should use different speed limits for the various lanes. 100 km/h for the rightmost lane, 110 km/h for the middle lane, and 120 km/h for the leftmost lane. If there are not 3 lanes but just 2 lanes, then the top speed will be 110 km/h, but where there are 3 lanes, then the top speed will be 120 km/h.

However, the speed limits should be adjustable for the conditions. Fog or snow should force all speed limits on the highway down to 80 km/h. Accidents or blockages even lower. It'll mean actual monitoring of traffic cameras, either by computer or human. If no visibility from a camera, the area in question would get a reduced speed limit.
 
It was a joke. You are right 120km would beget 130km. That's why the proposal is 130 because no one is driving 140-150k unless they want to die.

I have to repeat it again.

Why are so many saying that transit experts should decide whether subway or LRT should be built, but everyone is happy with politicians setting speed limits. I am sure you would have a much harder time finding a Traffic Engineer endorsing a 100 km/h than to find a transit expert endorsing subway.

Exactly... somehow the politicians have become experts in that regard. The most likely reason is that safety and PROPER use of the road (ie: at a speed for which the road is designed for, for MAJORITY of the drivers and cars) are not a topmost concern when the government decides (speeding tickets, raised insurance premiums, essentially the money-talk counts a lot as well...). Thankfully, our cops have decided that the law is quite bad and allow faster speeds, more in line the the actual road design - they are humans as well, after all and they see the absurdity of such low speed limit on such great roads. 130km/h is the most common speed that I personally see and hear about from people I talk to and sure enough, the stats confirm that such speeds are indeed quite safe (Ontario has some of the safest roads, at least on this continent).

If anyone claims "people will always speed" and go 10-15 over, then I'll say once again... What if the speed limit was 150 km/h? Would everyone drive at 165-170? What if the limit was 200km/h? Would that produce speeds of 210-215 by most motorist?

People will NOT always speed, but will always want to drive at speed that feels safe for the road and weather conditions. It has been widely observed and agreed around the world, that such chosen speeds are between 120-140 km/h. Hence our initiative. We don't want people feeling like criminals when driving at 130, and since most of us are driving exactly around that velocity, we want this to be recognized and legislated (it. 120 limit with 10-15 km/h tolerance).

Those wishing to travel slower, can still do so in a slower lane designed for slower (and larger) vehicles.

If you would like to READ MORE and SUPPORT the cause, LIKE our facebook page at www.facebook.com/stop100

Have your voice and vote at www.stop100.ca/choose.html

Also, please read some FAQs about the topic on www.stop100.ca/faq.html
 
Last edited:
They should use different speed limits for the various lanes. 100 km/h for the rightmost lane, 110 km/h for the middle lane, and 120 km/h for the leftmost lane. If there are not 3 lanes but just 2 lanes, then the top speed will be 110 km/h, but where there are 3 lanes, then the top speed will be 120 km/h.

However, the speed limits should be adjustable for the conditions. Fog or snow should force all speed limits on the highway down to 80 km/h. Accidents or blockages even lower. It'll mean actual monitoring of traffic cameras, either by computer or human. If no visibility from a camera, the area in question would get a reduced speed limit.
How about a 5KMH discount for blue cars on Tuesday?

You must have some inkling of how impossible your proposals would be to enforce short of hiring 10,000 new traffic cops and equipping them with cruisers and radar guns.
And that's just Toronto.
 
Exactly... somehow the politicians have become experts in that regard. The most likely reason is that safety and PROPER use of the road (ie: at a speed for which the road is designed for, for MAJORITY of the drivers and cars) are not a topmost concern when the government decides (speeding tickets, raised insurance premiums, essentially the money-talk counts a lot as well...). Thankfully, our cops have decided that the law is quite bad and allow faster speeds, more in line the the actual road design - they are humans as well, after all and they see the absurdity of such low speed limit on such great roads. 130km/h is the most common speed that I personally see and hear about from people I talk to and sure enough, the stats confirm that such speeds are indeed quite safe (Ontario has some of the safest roads, at least on this continent).

If anyone claims "people will always speed" and go 10-15 over, then I'll say once again... What if the speed limit was 150 km/h? Would everyone drive at 165-170? What if the limit was 200km/h? Would that produce speeds of 210-215 by most motorist?

People will NOT always speed, but will always want to drive at speed that feels safe for the road and weather conditions. It has been widely observed and agreed around the world, that such chosen speeds are between 120-140 km/h. Hence our initiative. We don't want people feeling like criminals when driving at 130, and since most of us are driving exactly around that velocity, we want this to be recognized and legislated (it. 120 limit with 10-15 km/h tolerance).

Those wishing to travel slower, can still do so in a slower lane designed for slower (and larger) vehicles.

Fine then, you may have that after adopting a more stringent and comprehensive licensing procedures similar to those in Germany in addition to the same level of European gas taxation.
 
Fine then, you may have that after adopting a more stringent and comprehensive licensing procedures similar to those in Germany in addition to the same level of European gas taxation.

I personally don't mind harsher licensing rules at all and would support such initiative - I wouldn't go so far, though, as to say that this would be a pre-requisite to changing the limit. Remember, we don't drive at 105-110 today to need further education to drive at 130. We already are doing 120-140, so this initiative is merely to recognize the reality and allow the drivers to continue doing so - legally. So far, the poll results show 88-90% in favour of raising the limit. We encourage ANYONE AGAINST IT to cast their negative vote at www.stop100.ca

As to taxation, I fail to see a connection.
 
I think that Ontario's freeways are built to good standards, but there some still some deficiencies. Substantial lengths of 400 series highways lack paved shoulders on both sides of the carriageway. You can still encounter those primitive-looking barriers that consist of metal wire between wooden poles. But these aren't decidedly glaring issues. I agree that the speed limit should be raised because the highways and contemporary cars are probably good enough for it. Cruising speed on rural sections of the 401 in normal visibility and traffic seems to be between 120-130, which means that passing requires between 130-140 kph. That's supposedly serious ticket territory but really just a part of safe driving, passing in the left lane to ensure you can cruise in the right lane with a safe amount of space between cars. Recognizing current safe driving habits is good legislation.
 

Back
Top