Saturday, May 26, 2012Mostly Cloudy 18°C
City

Morning Brew: March 2nd, 2009

Posted by Jerrold Litwinenko / March 2, 2009

ttc passengerPhoto: untitled by Torontogal Photos, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.

What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):

There are ongoing concerns that the new speed limiter law for large trucks (topping them out at 105km/hr) is actually making our highways less safe. Truckers will be staging a convoy protest at Queen's Park today, so the inner city roads will likely be snarled some. I wonder if they'd settle for 110 km/hr. Or 115 km/hr.

Another weekend, another brazen daytime shooting. This time police have been really quick to release security video footage (embedded below) that shows two men walk up to an Etobicoke apartment complex and fire several rounds each, wounding but not killing their target. Seeing this makes me feel both ashamed and ill that this kind.


Those fluorescent-lettered portable pop up signs that we see pretty much everywhere in the city are almost all illegal, but enforcement has been slow and challenging. Now the city's municipal licensing and standards department is cracking down on illegal signs, and hopes to have twice as many removed this year over last.

A couple of teens were fatally run down by a car in Ajax, and it appears that it was done intentionally. Police are investigating a car wreck that came after a brawl, and believe that the two are directly related. It's a grave situation, but being young offenders might make the consequences laughable.

And scientists at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital have made some significant progress in stem cell research. They can now use for research adult human skin cells (rather than embryonic cells), without using viruses that are associated with increased cancer risk.

Discussion

28 Comments

apetimberlake / March 2, 2009 at 09:24 am
user-pic
GULAGS FOR THESE IDIOTS!
Daniel / March 2, 2009 at 09:47 am
user-pic
Speed limiters should be in cars as well - top them out at 120kph
Andrew / March 2, 2009 at 09:51 am
user-pic
Instead of just focusing on those neon eye-sores, they should also be paying attention to many of the illegal billboards that plague this city http://illegalsigns.ca/
Jerrold / March 2, 2009 at 09:51 am
user-pic
How incredible would it be if all Lamborghinis, Porches, and Maseratis had the same top speed as all Fords, Toyotas, and Hyundais?
Mark Dowling / March 2, 2009 at 09:53 am
user-pic
Someone should tell the truckers that
a) 100 is the limit
b) It's a limit, not a guideline

CN and CP have their issues and safety could be tighter on the railroads but if they caused a major smash due to exceeding their line limit there would be a Public Inquiry. It happens about once a week on the 400s and nobody gives a damn.
Ryan L. replying to a comment from Mark Dowling / March 2, 2009 at 10:03 am
user-pic
There would be a public inquiry AND proper compensation.

Anytime there is a major railway incident (such as a derailment) compensation is given to the other companies affected. ie, If a CN train derails and causes delays with VIA Rail trains, then CN gives VIA a bunch of money. They then also give CP a bunch of money to reroute the CN trains onto CP tracks and give more money to compensate for the added congestion.

Good luck getting the same kind of response from trucking companies.
That Guy / March 2, 2009 at 10:25 am
user-pic
limiters seem ok, but the speed needs to be higher
cars are expeced to go above the limit when passing, it would not be possible to safely pass vehicles on single lane highways otherwise

onegirl replying to a comment from That Guy / March 2, 2009 at 10:44 am
user-pic
Most single lane highways that I've been on have had speed limits of about 80m/hr (sometimes 70). But, let's assume that you are driving along a single lane highway with a 100m/hr speed limit. And, you are behind someone going 100m/hr. Well, why would you need to pass? If the person in front is going slower than the speed limit, then you can speed up (all the way to 105m/hr!) and should be able to pass safely. I suppose if the person in front is going 99m/hr you may need a bit of extra speed... 110m/hr would probably do it.

Is it really legally ok to go above the speed limit in order to pass? I tried to find the info online but there is a lot to wade through. Just curious.


Jerrold / March 2, 2009 at 11:00 am
user-pic
On single lane roads with speed limits of 100km/hr I would definitely not feel safe passing in a car capped at 110km/hr. I'd say 120-130km/hr would be safer.
Darcy K. replying to a comment from Andrew / March 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
user-pic
Well said, Andrew. Instead of illegal billboards, it's easier for the traffic cops... err enforcement cops to pick on store owners. One shop owner said to me that his sidewalk tent sign (all of 3 feet high & 2 feet wide) was seized without warning. He was told if he wanted it back, he'd have to pay a $100 fine, and an annual $100 sign permit/fee.

We have a socialist mayor who loves to spend, so you can expect more user fees and permit fees like the one required here.
Ratpick / March 2, 2009 at 11:19 am
user-pic
Lordy. Doesn't anyone here believe that drivers should be EDUCATED rather than LIMITED? I fear we are becoming so safety-obsessed that we can't think straight about what will actually make our roads safer (road design, better driving habits).

Y'all should check out the emerging school in road design that proposes we can make things safer simply by designing roads that encourage motorists to slow down. The upside is that these roads are more appealing to other users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.

Most accidents happen at intersections, not where people are going extremely fast. Limiting people to 100kph (such an arbitrary number -- why not 60?) on roads designed for much higher speeds is just plain silly.

Disclosure: I drive a tiny roadster that isn't fun above 100kph, so I'm arguing this from the point of view of somebody who doesn't really speed anyway.



Ryan L. replying to a comment from That Guy / March 2, 2009 at 11:28 am
user-pic
Then the question is should trucks be passing anyways?

The one thing that worries me about this is in areas where the 401 is only 2 lanes in each direction (Pretty much everywhere except Toronto). At 105, the trucks will have to stick to the right hand lane. With the number of trucks on the highway I see this creating a nice little impentrable wall of steel.

Drivers will get the choice of driving in that lane, sandwiching their car between the tractor trailers or driving in the left lane amongst the people doing 130. It'll also be fun for those in the left lane to get through that wall when trying to get to an upcoming exit. Especially when those truck drivers can't speed up to let someone in.

The likely end result is likely going to be 1) Truck drivers driving in the left lane, pissing countless people off and causing car drivers to unsafely pass on the right. 2) Slower drivers who are too timid to drive in the right lane with the trucks slowing down the left lane traffic and resulting in the same situation as #1.

A better solution would be stricter laws on truck drivers.

My retired father drivers chartered buses from time to time, mostly for school kids. The buses don't have limiters (some companies might use them, but I'm pretty sure it's not universal). The 100km/h limit is <b>strictly</b> enforced. Police do not hesitate pulling over bus drivers going 110 or 115. As a result, the vast majority of bus drivers wouldn't dare going over 105 for fear of losing their job/license.
Ryan L. replying to a comment from Ryan L. / March 2, 2009 at 11:29 am
user-pic
I should clarify that police don't hesitate in pulling over -school- bus drivers.
Ryan L. replying to a comment from Andrew / March 2, 2009 at 11:35 am
user-pic
I say get rid of those black and neon signs only because they <b>suck</b> as advertising tools (-especially- those that are only text).
That Guy replying to a comment from onegirl / March 2, 2009 at 11:40 am
user-pic
There have been countless stories in newspapers about people complaining that they got a ticked for holding up traffic whille driving 110 in the passing lane. This I assume in most cases actually means you were staying in the passing lane. Regardless of the speed you are going, you should not be in the left lane unless you are passing (or are on the DVP where it's always rush hour bumper to bumper).
I do believe the problem is more of education than anything, i grew up in germany with the autobahn, there is no max speed, but there is minimum speeds for lanes. What i never saw was people passing on the right, everyone is going at insane speeds, but there is a very strict order to things.

Nothamerican highways are the slowest i have seen but also the most chaotic in it's random patters, people flying around at 140 in the ramp lanes.

Anyways, now i just ride my bicycle. It was rather cold today.

Andrew replying to a comment from That Guy / March 2, 2009 at 11:58 am
user-pic
"There have been countless stories in newspapers about people complaining that they got a ticked for holding up traffic whille driving 110 in the passing lane."

Really? Can you post one of the stories please?
Stephen replying to a comment from Ratpick / March 2, 2009 at 01:05 pm
user-pic
Having a speed limit is limiting. Drivers are already educated. They read the book, take the test, what else would you like?
Stephen replying to a comment from Ratpick / March 2, 2009 at 01:11 pm
user-pic
Having a speed limit is limiting. Drivers are already educated. They read the book, take the test, what else would you like? I know you always speak for the highest common denominator but sometimes we need rules and limitiations for the lowest common denominator. Remember your argument on the Green Inspections and how it effects us all, yadda yadda yadda. Educate all you want but why should the rest of us be at risk when some don't take the education or care for the rules. Truckers speed, they are on a route and the more tiem they can save to make the delivery the better. Yes accidents happen at intersections, that is a whole other subject that involves other rules and a separate investigation this is something else, you might as well bring up the driving on a cellphone issue.

LORDY your som above everyone else. I really should just have a text file for quick responses to your wanna be high brow comments.
Andrew / March 2, 2009 at 01:26 pm
user-pic
If anyone even bothered to read the article http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/03/02/8585286-sun.html it was arguing mostly against the idea:

" Ontario and Quebec now require electronic speed limiters on large trucks, but other provinces are rejecting the concept, saying the devices can sometimes actually make roads less safe.

Even a study commissioned by the federal government has concluded there are safety questions about speed limiters, especially in heavy traffic."

But I do enjoy the logical fallacies being posted here.
Stephen / March 2, 2009 at 01:50 pm
user-pic
of course there are safety issues if you can't speed up and get out of the way.
Stephen / March 2, 2009 at 02:05 pm
user-pic
Only about a dozen or so truckers showed up for this protest today. Guess it doesn't rally matter either way.
Stephen / March 2, 2009 at 03:44 pm
user-pic
the big issue is Truckers watching DVD movies while on the highway.
Ratpick replying to a comment from Stephen / March 2, 2009 at 03:54 pm
user-pic
"Drivers are already educated. They read the book, take the test, what else would you like?"

So the training standards as they exist now are sufficient?

Sorry you find my comments too "wannabe highbrow" there, friendo. Frankly, I can't recall reading any of your comments in the past.
Carla replying to a comment from Ratpick / March 2, 2009 at 04:59 pm
user-pic
Truck drivers are required to write their licensing test every 5 years, which means they are continually up to date on rules of the road.
I do not like the limiters being implemented on trucks.

@Stephen, regarding making faster delivery times. Doesn't just about everyone do this when they drive, no matter what kind of vehicle they drive? People race to get to work on time, or just race for the hell of it.

I think the bottom line is this isn't limited to truck drivers. We can't penalize one set of drivers and let others off.
stephen replying to a comment from Ratpick / March 2, 2009 at 11:39 pm
user-pic
ok i owe you an appology. sorry ratpick. I called you out, sometimes I / some of us, get hot headed in these discussions and can't help but hit below the belt. Sorry. Your arguement is valid.
nate / March 3, 2009 at 12:49 am
user-pic
Nice Chevron ad in the photo. The economist is a superb magazine.
Paul / March 3, 2009 at 02:59 am
user-pic
This is by far one of the most ridiculous law ever implemented by this shit Mcguinty gov.... tell u why.. a lot of Ontario truck drivers go through everywhere, places like Nevada where the limit is 75miles/h and in Texas the limit of some portions of the interstate is 80miles/h.... same with western Canada Alberta/Sask where the limit is 110km/h.... ok why should they have to suffer that a government makes stupid decision... and the truckers that come in from other places like the states/western canada .... will get fined if they're truck is not govern....can u say CASH GRAB....that's why this government is doing this ... cause they know truckers that come once/twice through Ontario/Quebec don't know the rule they will be hit with a nice fine.CASH GRAB. the province is broke.. they need money so they'll try to get in the most ridiculous way ever.... these are the people that if they stop working every single person will feel the impact...
again
CASH GRAB.. just like the other 50km/h over rule ...
matt / March 3, 2009 at 03:56 am
user-pic
If the province wants to add limiters that is fine so long as it is capped at the highest possible speed limit in North America (which with only special exception is 80mph). As one commenter said, the limit is the maximum legal speed in ideal conditions. I believe, and I could be wrong, that the police can ticket you for unsafe speeds in bad weather (unsafe speed for conditions or whatever) even if you are below the limit. I also agree with another poster saying that what is good for one should be good for all. I'm all for limiters on every vehicle. It removes the issue of people driving too fast versus the slower vehicles, removes the necessity of having cops to focus on speed encforcement instead of other much, much more dangerous actions you see everyday on the road (and I'm really looking at the taxis out there in particular) and it allows for better traffic without the stop/go "spring" effect that causes traffic jams.

In the end though, speed isn't the real issue on the road. It's paying attention to the road instead of everything else.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal