Speed Limit increase to 120 kmph

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

So this thread was revived after almost 2 years.

Speed limits on most highways are still not 120 kms/hour in Alberta.

Talk to you all on this thread in another 2 years...hehe...

Yup!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dfarms11]

Did anything ever come of this Bill? Did it even get presented? Did it get put down? Still in consideration?

[chickensashimi]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Did not see this discussed anywhere else so thought I would post it.

A UCP MLA has put forth a private members bill to increase the speed limit on some of the highways in Alberta to 120 kmph.

Personally I think it is long overdue on the twinned highways in the province. Vehicles today are light years ahead in handling and safety compared to vehicles even 20 years ago.

Still mulling over in my mind if they should maybe limit heavy vehicles to a lower speed say 100 or 110 kmph like some other jurisdictions do.

Should be an interesting debate as I know the Edmonton Police Chief was stating the Henday limit should be increased to 110 kmph a couple of years back.

Yes the should, especially the #1,#2, and #3

[elkhunter11]

I doubt that we will ever see a 110km limit on the Henday, as that would cut into revenue. As backwards as the Edmonton council is, I am surprised that they don't lower the limit to increase revenue.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by chickensashimi

Yes the should, especially the #1,#2, and #3

#43 and #16 as well. At least 120 km/hr.
Add to it a lot of these secondary paved roads at only 80. Bump them up as well.
Far more enjoyable driving in the US with higher speed limits

[treeroot]

I would be very opposed to this..

Take one drive down a alberta highway and just focus on the on coming driver.. Try to count how many of those driver's are on their cell phone.. You'll loose count after a short while.

Increasing speed limit to get to your desitnation a bit earlier? Not worth it.. I get if your driving fort mac to Calagry you'll get their signfiicantly eariler, but most of us on a highway are not driving it for 3-5 hours, just a short drive.. So in the end it won't matter much, except more accidents..

And besides, on 100km/hr highways, everyone goes 110-120 anyays.. Cops don't even flash lights when your doing 115 in a 100. So increasing it to 120 will mean most people will evnetually push that to 130-140.. We don't need that on our highways that are riddled with wild life and drivers on cell phones.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by treeroot

I would be very opposed to this..

Take one drive down a alberta highway and just focus on the on coming driver.. Try to count how many of those driver's are on their cell phone.. You'll loose count after a short while.

Increasing speed limit to get to your desitnation a bit earlier? Not worth it.. I get if your driving fort mac to Calagry you'll get their signfiicantly eariler, but most of us on a highway are not driving it for 3-5 hours, just a short drive.. So in the end it won't matter much, except more accidents..

And besides, on 100km/hr highways, everyone goes 110-120 anyays.. Cops don't even flash lights when your doing 115 in a 100. So increasing it to 120 will mean most people will evnetually push that to 130-140.. We don't need that on our highways that are riddled with wild life and drivers on cell phones.

Agree, what’s the rush?
And regarding the longer drives pass everyone just to pull over for a one hour break for lunch .
You see it all the time as people weave in And out of traffic just to all gather at the next set of lights ohhh I know your two cars ahead of me, ok you win.
Speed likings are fine as they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[I’d rather be outdoors]

If the limit increased (doubtful it will due to the revenue current limits generate) nobody is forcing anyone to do 120, it’s a limit. Want to go slower? No problem, stay in the far right lane.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by I’d rather be outdoors

If the limit increased (doubtful it will due to the revenue current limits generate) nobody is forcing anyone to do 120, it’s a limit. Want to go slower? No problem, stay in the far right lane.

Problem is that most will travel 15 over minimum in all types of weather conditions bumper to bumper with cell phones in hand.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Problem is that most will travel 15 over minimum in all types of weather conditions bumper to bumper with cell phones in hand.

There are existing laws for these sorts of things…as for weather conditions, people need to drive at their respective comfort zones in said conditions.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Problem is that most will travel 15 over minimum in all types of weather conditions bumper to bumper with cell phones in hand.

What's the difference between 100 and 120 if everyone is driving too fast for weather conditions while cell phone is in hand?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

What's the difference between 100 and 120 if everyone is driving too fast for weather conditions while cell phone is in hand?

That is like asking how more firearms laws will make society safer, if criminals ignore the current legislation.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That is like asking how more firearms laws will make society safer, if criminals ignore the current legislation.

Tough concept to figure out I guess

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

What's the difference between 100 and 120 if everyone is driving too fast for weather conditions while cell phone is in hand?

well if your driving to fast for weather conditions, cell phone in hand your part of the problem not the solution, that's the difference.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

well if your driving to fast for weather conditions, cell phone in hand your part of the problem not the solution, that's the difference.

So if you're not driving too fast for weather conditions and not "distracted" driving, then 120 is an acceptable speed limit?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

well if your driving to fast for weather conditions, cell phone in hand your part of the problem not the solution, that's the difference.

And you likely don't care about observing speed limits, so if they are 10km higher or lower, it doesn't matter to you.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And you likely don't care about observing speed limits, so if they are 10km higher or lower, it doesn't matter to you.

Observing speed limits is one thing, obeying is another, now toss in distracted driving, not being a defensive driver, it’s just a matter of time before there is a wreck.
The speed limits are fine as is and I got the feeling they are not going to change.
As indicated earlier this is a old thread, hashed out and speed limits are still the same.
Oh I do care as I would like all to arrive alive.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Observing speed limits is one thing, obeying is another, now toss in distracted driving, not being a defensive driver, it’s just a matter of time before there is a wreck.
The speed limits are fine as is and I got the feeling they are not going to change.
As indicated earlier this is a old thread, hashed out and speed limits are still the same.
Oh I do care as I would like all to arrive alive.

The people that drive too fast for road conditions, or with a cell phone obviously don't care, they don't bother observing the regulations, so they don't let speed limits control their driving. So if you are thinking that a lower speed limit will protect you from them, you are just kidding yourself. The same is true for the fools that think that more firearms laws will prevent shootings.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The people that drive too fast for road conditions, or with a cell phone obviously don't care, they don't bother observing the regulations, so they don't let speed limits control their driving. So if you are thinking that a lower speed limit will protect you from them, you are just kidding yourself. The same is true for the fools that think that more firearms laws will prevent shootings.

Please advise the rest of us why this has anything to do with increasing speed limits to 120KPH...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

[/B]

Please advise the rest of us why this has anything to do with increasing speed limits to 120KPH...

The concept is the same, if certain people choose not to obey the regulations, it really doesn't matter what the regulations are. It's a pretty simple concept to understand.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Phil McCracken

[/B]

Please advise the rest of us why this has anything to do with increasing speed limits to 120KPH...

I hear what elk is saying now, regardless of increased speed limits, decreased speed limits, there will always be those people as elk mentioned.

yup I said those people

We all can agree on one thing though, public safety is first and foremost.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The concept is the same, if certain people choose not to obey the regulations, it really doesn't matter what the regulations are. It's a pretty simple concept to understand.

Duly noted sir...and Thank You for explaining it in "simple" terms, much appreciated as always...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

I hear what elk is saying now, regardless of increased speed limits, decreased speed limits, there will always be those people as elk mentioned.

yup I said those people

We all can agree on one thing though, public safety is first and foremost.

Public safety SHOULD be first and foremost, but we know that isn't always the way that it is when government is concerned. Revenue and politics often end up being the governments first concern. And that doesn't matter whether we are talking speed limits, firearms laws, illegal drugs or crimes in general.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Public safety SHOULD be first and foremost, but we know that isn't always the way that it is when government is concerned. Revenue and politics often end up being the governments first concern. And that doesn't matter whether we are talking speed limits, firearms laws, illegal drugs or crimes in general.

I'd rather see a minimum speed limit of 90K. All implements of husbandry sent to secondary roads. All loads over 10ft wide on secondary highways unless no other route is available. Split speed limits between tractor trailers with legal loads and regular traffic don't really work well. Again I don't like it when the big trucks are cruising north of 110K as well. Takes to much time and space when you get a holly crap momment.

BW

[jhl]

With the conditions of most if not all the roads in Alberta going in excess of 90 is taking your life in your hands. try going 120 from Valleyview to Grande Prairie, and see how that works for you.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Public safety SHOULD be first and foremost, but we know that isn't always the way that it is when government is concerned. Revenue and politics often end up being the governments first concern. And that doesn't matter whether we are talking speed limits, firearms laws, illegal drugs or crimes in general.

Public safety is first and foremost just sometimes depending on what side of the fence you are on any given day on any given subject people are going to agree or disagree.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Public safety is first and foremost just sometimes depending on what side of the fence you are on any given day on any given subject people are going to agree or disagree.

Trudeau tells us that the firearm bans are for public safety. That should be enough to prove that public safety is just an excuse, that politicians use to justify legislation. The enacting of the Emergency Measures Act, is another example.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Trudeau tells us that the firearm bans are for public safety. That should be enough to prove that public safety is just an excuse, that politicians use to justify legislation. The enacting of the Emergency Measures Act, is another example.

I hear you on that and agree but as I said earlier this you and I don’t agree on what the turd puts forth but some do.
Unfortunately in some cases the majority do agree whether it’s speed limits etc.
Not everything will ever line up perfectly for ones wants, needs and desires and thats life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

I hear you on that and agree but as I said earlier this you and I don’t agree on what the turd puts forth but some do.
Unfortunately in some cases the majority do agree whether it’s speed limits etc.
Not everything will ever line up perfectly for ones wants, needs and desires and thats life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point is, that those are examples that prove that public safety was just an excuse, the real reason was politics, and the fact that some gullible people might believe that public safety was the reason, doesn't change that.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

My point is, that those are examples that prove that public safety was just an excuse, the real reason was politics, and the fact that some gullible people might believe that public safety was the reason, doesn't change that.

And my point is that you see things through a different set of eyes as we all do.
Politics will always play a factor in everything.
Sometimes things line up with what we like and sometimes not.
Point is that some may say the same about you and I being gullible on certain areas of politics, versions of public safety etc




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk