Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,506 
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
July 3rd, 2007, 11:40 AM
Ontario intends to limit maximum speeds in trucks to 105 km/hr. They claim it will reduce greenhouse gasses and make the highways safer. Typical that someone who's never been behind the wheel of a big vehicle is writing the rules. Has she (Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield) ever considered how long it will take one vehicle of a combined length of nearly 80 feet with a 5 km/hr speed advantage to pass another vehicle of the same length ? Will this be applicable to Ontario registered vehicles only? There's no way they can force an out-of-province rig to install a limiting microchip and have you seen the way some of those out-of-province tags zip past you on the 400 series highways?
Wolf
Ontario intends to limit maximum speeds in trucks to 105 km/hr. They claim it will reduce greenhouse gasses and make the highways safer. Typical that someone who's never been behind the wheel of a big vehicle is writing the rules. Has she (Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield) ever considered how long it will take one vehicle of a combined length of nearly 80 feet with a 5 km/hr speed advantage to pass another vehicle of the same length ? Will this be applicable to Ontario registered vehicles only? There's no way they can force an out-of-province rig to install a limiting microchip and have you seen the way some of those out-of-province tags zip past you on the 400 series highways?
Wolf
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
July 3rd, 2007, 11:47 AM
If all big rigs were going 105 km/hr, there would be no need to pass.
I think big rigs should be restricted from the far left lane at all times unless the right lanes are blocked. There is nothing more frustrating than passing a line of trucks them all doing around 95-100 and you going 120 to be pulled out in front of by one of these trucks who proceeds to pass the 95 rig going 96.
If all big rigs were going 105 km/hr, there would be no need to pass.
I think big rigs should be restricted from the far left lane at all times unless the right lanes are blocked. There is nothing more frustrating than passing a line of trucks them all doing around 95-100 and you going 120 to be pulled out in front of by one of these trucks who proceeds to pass the 95 rig going 96.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,683
July 3rd, 2007, 11:50 AM
Limiting to 105? another pointless law.
How about you enforce the damn speed limit of 100. If you think 100 is too damn slow, then get your MP to raise the limit to 110 or 120.
But everyone going above the speed limit always pisses me off. If the speed limit is too low, get it raised, don't have universal disregard for the laws.
Now they are going to pass a law to make it illegal to break the law! What a waste of money!
Limiting to 105? another pointless law.
How about you enforce the damn speed limit of 100. If you think 100 is too damn slow, then get your MP to raise the limit to 110 or 120.
But everyone going above the speed limit always pisses me off. If the speed limit is too low, get it raised, don't have universal disregard for the laws.
Now they are going to pass a law to make it illegal to break the law! What a waste of money!
July 3rd, 2007, 11:58 AM
You think that is annoying now wait until the speed limiters installed. When trucks can't build up a little speed to carry them up a hill and they have to start at the bottom of even a small hill they loose more speed on the grades. Because of the limiters they will not have the power to hold that speed up the hill either.I'm sure you will be the first to complain when those trucks are passing another at 75 km/hr instead of 90 or 100.
I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
You think that is annoying now wait until the speed limiters installed. When trucks can't build up a little speed to carry them up a hill and they have to start at the bottom of even a small hill they loose more speed on the grades. Because of the limiters they will not have the power to hold that speed up the hill either.I'm sure you will be the first to complain when those trucks are passing another at 75 km/hr instead of 90 or 100.
I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
July 3rd, 2007, 11:59 AM
If you go 100 km/hr on a 4XX highway, you will more than likely cause an accident. The average speed is usually around 120. The reason they don't change it is if they made the speed limit 120, the average would go up to 140.
What they SHOULD do is make the max 120 and bring back photo radar. Nab anybody going 121 and faster.
But trucks, leave at 105 in the right lane. How do you stop a truck going faster than that in time?
If you go 100 km/hr on a 4XX highway, you will more than likely cause an accident. The average speed is usually around 120. The reason they don't change it is if they made the speed limit 120, the average would go up to 140.
What they SHOULD do is make the max 120 and bring back photo radar. Nab anybody going 121 and faster.
But trucks, leave at 105 in the right lane. How do you stop a truck going faster than that in time?
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
July 3rd, 2007, 12:01 PM
Quoting eh1eh
If they are going 75 up a hill, why would they consider passing?
You think that is annoying now wait until the speed limiters installed. When trucks can't build up a little speed to carry them up a hill and they have to start at the bottom of even a small hill they loose more speed on the grades. Because of the limiters they will not have the power to hold that speed up the hill either.I'm sure you will be the first to complain when those trucks are passing another at 75 km/hr instead of 90 or 100. I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
July 3rd, 2007, 12:03 PM
Quoting IdRatherBeSkiing
Because the truck infront of them is only going 73.
If they are going 75 up a hill, why would they consider passing?
Satelitte Radio Addict
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto, ON
Location: Toronto, ON
July 3rd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Quoting eh1eh
Which was exactly my first complaint: Trucks should not be in the passing lane. Right now its 95, soon it may be 75. That is a danger to anyone who happens to be cut off by these trucks.
Because the truck infront of them is only going 73.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,314
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 3rd, 2007, 12:23 PM
not only that, when they start to loose revs going up even a small incline now, they will be changing down gears(a lot more often)...which results in higher revs, = more fuel.......kinda defeats the purpose of limiters.
Quoting eh1eh
You think that is annoying now wait until the speed limiters installed. When trucks can't build up a little speed to carry them up a hill and they have to start at the bottom of even a small hill they loose more speed on the grades. Because of the limiters they will not have the power to hold that speed up the hill either.I'm sure you will be the first to complain when those trucks are passing another at 75 km/hr instead of 90 or 100. I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
not only that, when they start to loose revs going up even a small incline now, they will be changing down gears(a lot more often)...which results in higher revs, = more fuel.......kinda defeats the purpose of limiters.
Bright Spark
Posts: 447
July 3rd, 2007, 12:43 PM
Not to mention it gives them carte blanche to pull you over, never mind that you're just pacing traffic...
Quoting Zzarchov
Two words: Cash Cow.
Limiting to 105? another pointless law.
How about you enforce the damn speed limit of 100. If you think 100 is too damn slow, then get your MP to raise the limit to 110 or 120.
But everyone going above the speed limit always pisses me off. If the speed limit is too low, get it raised, don't have universal disregard for the laws.
Now they are going to pass a law to make it illegal to break the law! What a waste of money!
How about you enforce the damn speed limit of 100. If you think 100 is too damn slow, then get your MP to raise the limit to 110 or 120.
But everyone going above the speed limit always pisses me off. If the speed limit is too low, get it raised, don't have universal disregard for the laws.
Now they are going to pass a law to make it illegal to break the law! What a waste of money!
Not to mention it gives them carte blanche to pull you over, never mind that you're just pacing traffic...
Super Genius
Posts: 1,314
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 3rd, 2007, 12:53 PM
exactly impetus, tis for the money...
concider the number of transports on the road.....all those vehicles will be required to change gear more often( more wear and tear on clutch, tranny, engine etc) resulting in more taxes to gov via parts and labour, for repairs..... not to mention the extra fuel used, and the resulting extra taxes at the pump also......
exactly impetus, tis for the money...
concider the number of transports on the road.....all those vehicles will be required to change gear more often( more wear and tear on clutch, tranny, engine etc) resulting in more taxes to gov via parts and labour, for repairs..... not to mention the extra fuel used, and the resulting extra taxes at the pump also......
July 3rd, 2007, 03:19 PM
What sort of chips exactly are they planning on installing anyway? I've seen 'tattletales' installed on plenty of industrial vehicles which allow for a certain speed (105 for example), before registering on a software program that the vehicle was speeding. On my husband's vehicle, he's given a score, and is subject to suspension from work if his score is outside of tolerable ranges. He can still speed when needed (passing and such), but each bit impacts his score. So far, he's never had an inappropriate score, regardless of needing to pass.
Quoting lone wolf
A rig shouldn't be passing with ony a 5km/h advantage, because a rig SHOULD NOT be passing a vehicle which is traveling the speed limit.
Ontario intends to limit maximum speeds in trucks to 105 km/hr. They claim it will reduce greenhouse gasses and make the highways safer. Typical that someone who's never been behind the wheel of a big vehicle is writing the rules. Has he ever considered how long it will take one vehicle of a combined length of nearly 80 feet with a 5 km/hr speed advantage to pass another vehicle of the same length ? Will this be applicable to Ontario registered vehicles only? There's no way they can force an out-of-province rig to install a limiting microchip and have you seen the way some of those out-of-province tags zip past you on the 400 series highways?
Wolf
Wolf
What sort of chips exactly are they planning on installing anyway? I've seen 'tattletales' installed on plenty of industrial vehicles which allow for a certain speed (105 for example), before registering on a software program that the vehicle was speeding. On my husband's vehicle, he's given a score, and is subject to suspension from work if his score is outside of tolerable ranges. He can still speed when needed (passing and such), but each bit impacts his score. So far, he's never had an inappropriate score, regardless of needing to pass.
July 3rd, 2007, 03:24 PM
Quoting eh1eh
my hubby's company scores their drivers based on how long they speed for. If a driver hits 140 for a brief period of time, needing to pass, or get up speed down a hill, it doesn't impact their score as badly as when they are driving 120 for 50kms. It seems to me the same sort of 'tattletales', with governmental review, wouldn't be a bad thing.
You think that is annoying now wait until the speed limiters installed. When trucks can't build up a little speed to carry them up a hill and they have to start at the bottom of even a small hill they loose more speed on the grades. Because of the limiters they will not have the power to hold that speed up the hill either.I'm sure you will be the first to complain when those trucks are passing another at 75 km/hr instead of 90 or 100. I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
I have driven speed limited trucks. I really think it is a stupid idea. I've been driving trucks twenty years and over a million miles in Southern Ontario.
July 3rd, 2007, 03:38 PM
Karrie, Most trucks, at least all of mine have the computer programming already in their systems to do this. My trucks are governed to 120 km/hr and 2600 rpm max. The computers are such that you can allow higher rpm in the gears it is needed for pulling power and lower in the gears where it is not needed. The 105 km/hr is just too low as sometimes power is required at speed. Example, a truck blows a front tire at 105 km/hr, the way to control a vehicle in that situation is to apply power to offset the pull of the flat, then reduce power slowly until the vehicle can be brought to the side safely. Without this power atruck could be pulled out of control much more easily. The limiting of speed will stop the real morons but will remove a tool for the good drivers. I have driven limited trucks and found I only attracted the scorn of CAR drivers, who in my opinion just aim their vehicles down the road and are responsible for 80% of car/truck accidents, in Ontario anyway. That, while I can't provide a link to that stat right now, explains who should have the speed limiters and some real driver training. I have literaly driven over one million miles in the Goldenhorshoe area of Southern Ontario, I am sick of CAR drivers presuming they know how to drive.
Karrie, Most trucks, at least all of mine have the computer programming already in their systems to do this. My trucks are governed to 120 km/hr and 2600 rpm max. The computers are such that you can allow higher rpm in the gears it is needed for pulling power and lower in the gears where it is not needed. The 105 km/hr is just too low as sometimes power is required at speed. Example, a truck blows a front tire at 105 km/hr, the way to control a vehicle in that situation is to apply power to offset the pull of the flat, then reduce power slowly until the vehicle can be brought to the side safely. Without this power atruck could be pulled out of control much more easily. The limiting of speed will stop the real morons but will remove a tool for the good drivers. I have driven limited trucks and found I only attracted the scorn of CAR drivers, who in my opinion just aim their vehicles down the road and are responsible for 80% of car/truck accidents, in Ontario anyway. That, while I can't provide a link to that stat right now, explains who should have the speed limiters and some real driver training. I have literaly driven over one million miles in the Goldenhorshoe area of Southern Ontario, I am sick of CAR drivers presuming they know how to drive.
July 3rd, 2007, 03:39 PM
What a horrible idea. I can just picture driving up the 400 from Toronto to Barrie and having trucks severely reducing their speed up towards Newmarket, passing Holland Marsh and then slowing down again several times towards Barrie. We've already got a bunch of wackos driving up that highway impeding well-moving traffic.
Being stuck behind 3 or more rigs going 75-80 km/h while the rest of the traffic is moving at between 110 - 130km/h? No way! We also having this problem at their current speeds.
What a horrible idea. I can just picture driving up the 400 from Toronto to Barrie and having trucks severely reducing their speed up towards Newmarket, passing Holland Marsh and then slowing down again several times towards Barrie. We've already got a bunch of wackos driving up that highway impeding well-moving traffic.
Being stuck behind 3 or more rigs going 75-80 km/h while the rest of the traffic is moving at between 110 - 130km/h? No way! We also having this problem at their current speeds.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,506
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
July 3rd, 2007, 05:22 PM
I am not advocating driving at a constant speeds of over 100 km/hr. Laws penned in Toronto for multi-lane highways are applied on Northern Ontario's two-lane blacktop too. When you have slow-moving camp trailers on the road ahead, you need the ability to get out and pass as quickly as possible.
Wolf
I am not advocating driving at a constant speeds of over 100 km/hr. Laws penned in Toronto for multi-lane highways are applied on Northern Ontario's two-lane blacktop too. When you have slow-moving camp trailers on the road ahead, you need the ability to get out and pass as quickly as possible.
Wolf
Bright Spark
Posts: 447
July 3rd, 2007, 05:53 PM
Here's a little Nostradamus via Impetus for you...
I predict as soon as the government has the infrastructure available, they'll make transponders mandatory in every new vehicle.
Someone will give them the idea that tracking and billing via transponder is more cost effective and safer than highway cops.
Example, Hwy 407 ETR (Expensive...er...Express Toll Route) all they need to do is put in an algorithm in their billing system to subtract your entry time from your exit time and divide the distance by the result and then add a premium onto your toll for excess speed.
Beats the heckdarngeewhiz outta Photo radar!
Here's a little Nostradamus via Impetus for you...
I predict as soon as the government has the infrastructure available, they'll make transponders mandatory in every new vehicle.
Someone will give them the idea that tracking and billing via transponder is more cost effective and safer than highway cops.
Example, Hwy 407 ETR (Expensive...er...Express Toll Route) all they need to do is put in an algorithm in their billing system to subtract your entry time from your exit time and divide the distance by the result and then add a premium onto your toll for excess speed.
Beats the heckdarngeewhiz outta Photo radar!
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,506
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
July 3rd, 2007, 06:26 PM
Photo radar: You park a van and collect your bucks. Star Trekky stuff? You spend billions to install and maintain it and both systems only tag the vehicle - not the person driving it. The issue isn't speed limits. It's about hobbling an Ontario-registered truck so it can't get that extra burst at a critictial moment. The Fast 'n' Furious fools will always be out there. Cops should be able to eat them for breakfast.
Wolf
Photo radar: You park a van and collect your bucks. Star Trekky stuff? You spend billions to install and maintain it and both systems only tag the vehicle - not the person driving it. The issue isn't speed limits. It's about hobbling an Ontario-registered truck so it can't get that extra burst at a critictial moment. The Fast 'n' Furious fools will always be out there. Cops should be able to eat them for breakfast.
Wolf
