MLA pushes for higher speed limits
Motorists’ ‘irritation’ takes priority over protecting human lives
Searle Turton, the UCP member of the legislature for Spruce Grove-Stony Plain, is on a campaign to raise speed limits on Alberta’s four-lane divided highways to 120 km/hr. His reasons, reported in David Staples’ March 12 column in The Edmonton Journal, are that the current limits are “a daily irritant” and that raising the limit “is just something that resonates with everyone right across Alberta.”
First, I must shatter Turton’s belief in the unanimity of Albertans on this issue. I, for one, and I would bet many others do not find the current limit of 110 km/hr to be an irritant and raising that limit does not in any way resonate with me. I drive the limit on Alberta’s major highways, and the thing that irritates me the most are those vehicles which go flying by at 120 or 130 km/hr. They are a danger to motorists who want to arrive at their destination safely and who are obeying the laws of the road.
Further, unless a close relative is dying, there is no reason to travel so fast. If you are anxious about the impending death of a loved one, you should either slow down or let someone else drive. Your anxiety is itself a safety risk.
In Edmonton, city council in recent years has lowered the speed limit in school and playground zones to 30 km/hr and is considering whether to lower the limit in neighbourhoods to 40. Why? Because slowing down is safer for everyone.
Turton would not see this as a pertinent example. Speed limits in cities, he would likely argue, are not relevant to what the limit should be in “the middle of nowhere,” that is, on the Yellowhead Highway between Edmonton and Lloydminster or by Brooks or Didsbury. What the tens of thousands of people who live in these areas think of an MLA describing their communities as being in the middle of nowhere has not been discussed. Still, one does wonder what his own constituents might say if he described Stony Plain and Spruce Grove as being Nowheresville.
More important are the numerous studies conducted around the world which universally conclude that if the speed limit goes up so does the fatality rate. Conversely, when the speed limit is lowered, the fatality rate declines. The one exception is when speed limits are lowered to an unreasonable level. In that instance, accident rates increase because of the frustration motorists experience and the dangerous tactics they employ so they can drive at a reasonable speed.
The reasons for the higher fatality rate when speed limits are raised should be obvious – the faster you drive, the further you travel before you hit the brakes. As well, once you do begin braking, the distance you travel increases before you come to a full stop. In Alberta, the number of people killed in car crashes in 2018 was 289, a level that has been more or less the same for years. That is, a small village in “the middle of nowhere” gets wiped out every year.
Abolishing the “irritant” of the 110 km/hr limit would most likely increase the number of deaths as well as the number of widows and orphans, but at least the motorists with whom Turton discusses this matter would no longer be so irritated. At least for a while. It is not unlikely that after a few years of driving with a 120 km/hr limit, his friends or their children would become irritated with driving so slowly and would begin pushing for a speed limit of say, 130 km/hr.
As for those who disagree with his plan to raise the limit, Turton says, “I know there are some people who would advocate for everyone driving electric golf carts down Highway 2 and going at 20 or 30 kilometres per hour.” As a former teacher of university logic classes, I object. This is a fine example of the fallacy of the straw man – concocting a phoney position that your opponents do not hold and then criticizing it as being unrealistic.
Most likely the overwhelming majority of people who oppose Turton’s position – yes, there are some – would like to see highway speed limits remain the same rather than lowered to a ridiculously low level.
Myself, I believe that saving lives is far more important than preventing some motorists from becoming irritated. In many endeavours, most of us need to develop greater patience. Whether it is waiting for your passport to be processed or standing in line behind an elderly person in the grocery store line, it is up to you to overcome your impatience. The government is not responsible for ending your irritation. Some qualities adults should develop on their own.