Realistic Speed Limits Prevented by BC Politics

The Vancouver Sun originally published this article in May 2009 (SENSE Co-Founder Ian Tootill is the author), however it is no longer available online.

In 1996, 25,000 names were gathered in British Columbia for a petition calling for the removal of photo radar and an independent review of speed limits. The review was completed in 2002 and it revealed what most drivers already knew; that limits on some BC highways are set incorrectly, mostly too low. Over the past 20 years, the BC population has increased by more than 30 per cent and roadways have been busier than ever thanks to a recently robust economy. Despite this, we have enjoyed a reduction in crash-related fatalities of nearly 40 per cent from a peak in 1990 – more cars, more trips, and fewer deaths.

Yet the shrill cries of "Speed Is Killing Us" are still heard. Ironically, the enforcement emphasis during the past six years, during a period of dramatic economic growth and road use, has been rightly redirected toward offences with a higher correlation, to at-fault crashes rather than speeding.

The RCMP now issues about 250,000 tickets per year for speeding, less than half issued during the peak of photo radar. If proponents of more speed enforcement were correct, there should have been a noticeable increase in fatalities during this time. It has not happened just as it did not happen in the United States subsequent to the 1996 removal, despite intense lobbying of special interests, of the federally mandated 55 mph limit.

The RCMP leadership in BC can be given credit for implementing a new philosophy of targeted enforcement which has produced real improvements in highway safety, moving from speed traps to crash black spots. However, the baseline – the law – remains flawed.

Laws must be set with the reasonable actions of the reasonable majority in mind, and there is no value in legislation that there is neither the will nor the means to enforce. Anything to the contrary and the door opens for arbitrary abuse, as is the case with photo radar.

If a particular limit is routinely and safely disobeyed by the reasonable majority, it can hardly be called valid. Incorrectly set speed limits are a guarantee of non-compliance, necessitate more police for enforcement, are expensive for motorists (increased fines and insurance), reduce road capacity and efficiency, increase disrespect for laws in general, and can even embarrass politicians whose actions are not consistent with the laws they oversee.

So why then, did the Ministry of Transportation refuse to implement the recommendations in the report it commissioned? Further, why spend taxpayer money in the first place, if there were no plans to act on it? Answer: Politics.

Judith Reid, then minister of transportation and highways, told me during a 2003 meeting that the optics of raising speed limits were bad. Nobody wanted to be the minister during a crash fatality on a road with a higher speed limit – especially after the public had been bombarded for several years with ICBC's "Speed Is Killing Us" propaganda. Additionally, the change needed to be approved by then solicitor-general Rich Coleman, and that was not going to happen.

An odd thing occurs with the subject of speeding; few drivers see themselves as speeders. While many gasp at tickets for 40 km/h over the posted speed, few connect the dots and realize that most drivers are technically speeding when conditions are good. So if the legal speed limit on a highway is 90 km/h and 85 per cent of the drivers are travelling 110 or 115, the question should be: Are they travelling excessively over the safe speed for conditions? In BC, the answer is often no.

Highway safety requires two key ingredients: minimal speed variance and reduced traffic volume. Increasing highway capacity and design speed is one way the government reduces volume, but danger increases when vehicles impede others.

A much-needed improvement in BC is "Keep Right Except to Pass" legislation allowing police to enforce signage recently placed on highways to enhance safety, by reducing both vehicle interactions and speed variance, HOV lanes included. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends setting speed limits based upon an upper limit (85th percentile) of free-flow vehicle speeds.

Drivers naturally comply with limits viewed as reasonable, thus reducing speed variance and potential interactions between vehicles. Everybody wins; scofflaws are fewer and easy to apprehend, drivers are safer and politicians need not fear their driving records.

Sanity and Integrity Needed in BC Speed Limits

The SENSE mission is to raise the bar in driving competency and have our government set credible speed limits that represent the UPPER LEVEL of safe travel speed thereby encouraging voluntary compliance. The status quo however, wants to keep limits the way they are, while continuing to expose all of us to arbitrary ticketing by the occasional, but sometimes frequent, overzealous traffic cops that understandably wish to follow the letter of the law.

Put very simply, we think the reasonable actions by the safe and reasonable majority should be legal. This makes for fewer lawbreakers, creates more respect for laws, requires less costs for policing and courts, frees up the police and courts to deal with serious crime, costs drivers less in fines, allows driver/taxpayers more disposable income which they can spend on stimulating our economy and, it's the safest thing to do as we know mean travel speeds will change very little as a result. However, most importantly, speed variance decreases which is another way of saying there is better traffic flow which has known safety benefits, where attempting to enforce unrealistically low limits does not.

Drivers will drive close to design speeds of the roads no matter what the speed limits are. If limits are set correctly, not only will speed limit compliance increase but so will crashes decrease as travel speeds become more uniform. Don’t take our word for it, go here.

So to summarize, the BC Government, ICBC position is as follows: assume everyone will hit each other, clobber them 'til they slow down to the point of harm reduction when they inevitably crash. The SENSE position is to prevent the crash in the first place by minimizing speed variance through realistic speed limits thereby reducing complacency and raising the bar in driving competency. That's it in a nutshell; a philosophical difference that leads to both plenty of conflict and unnecessary inconvenience and costs. Who's right? Well BC drivers vote with their right feet every day. Who's winning? Well the government has your money, unlimited access to it, to win the propaganda war. Call us idealists, but we believe truth prevails.

Recently the RCMP say there has been a dramatic reduction in crashes, deaths and injuries in BC (similar to the US) since the draconian changes to the BC Motor Vehicle Act last fall. One would not be surprised after such a shock to the system. Besides, the restaurant and bar industry felt that everybody stayed home after the changes, so again one would be surprised if there were not a significant reduction. Expect a well choreographed dog and pony show at around the time of the one year anniversary of new regulations. The Liberal government will take credit for this as a direct result of the harsh laws that were passed last fall. They are good at these shows, not good at much else but good at putting on a good show for the media; a print media that seems to reprint just about everything they say, with little critical analysis from both time and budget constrained news reporters.

Interestingly, and surprisingly, there has been a steady reduction in speeding tickets lately. You just heard right, crashes down, speeding tickets down! However while the spin from the RCMP will be one of "hey look our new laws are working" and/or "look we are only going after the worst of the worst", we believe the this fact confirms the SENSE assertion that there has been an absurd emphasis on speeding offenses in the past which have had virtually zero effect on traffic safety. Think for a minute there is greater speed limit adherence by drivers? Not anywhere we drive. The other thing to keep in mind is that historically when excessive speed was involved in any crash, so was alcohol and or drugs. This fact is hardly ever noted by media and way under reported. Do you notice speed is nearly always a factor in high profile crashes? Have you seen reports of  single vehicle high speed collisions at high speed late at night and think the major contributing factor has nothing to do with alcohol or drugs? If so, you are extremely gullible.

Look, a good portion of this debate could end tomorrow and the government, RCMP and ICBC could gain credibility in the eyes of thinking competent motorists if there were some sanity and integrity in the speed limits.