The return of the ‘double nickel’ speed limit?

Now before you read any further PLEASE understand that years ago, long before I knew better, I was known to have exceeded the legal posted speed limit on very rare occasions. However, in recent years I have had my lead foot removed and put in storage.

Speed Limit of 50 KMH
Speed Limit of 50 KMH

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if the police just looked the other way when someone was shoplifting? If their response to a shop keeper who called them about a shoplifter was to say, “It was only a few bucks, let it go.”

What is that makes society so readily accept people breaking the law as soon as they get behind the wheel of a car? Why is it okay to disregard the speed limit and to drive along our city streets at 60, 70, 80 or more kilometres per hour? Why do we accept this?

Can you imagine the savings we would realize in body shop repairs if the speed limit of 50 kmh was absolutely strictly enforced and adhered to by ALL motor vehicle operators?

What about the savings we would realize in fuel consumption? Greenhouse gas emissions and the savings in human life and misery? How many fewer people would be killed in our cities as a result of a strictly enforced 50kmh speed limit?

Why do we build ever-bigger and smoother road systems that encourage people to drive at wild speeds?

The most prevalent advertisement for cars and trucks is still the one that shows the awesome power or speed at which the car or truck will move.

It is simply an interesting point of discussion. I know it is convenient to drive faster than the legal posted limit, but it is interesting to think about how we so easily accept this ignoring the law when so many other laws are so strictly enforced. Just thinking.





5 responses to “The return of the ‘double nickel’ speed limit?”

  1. Renuka Avatar

    Hmm interesting thought… Never thought to compare speeding to other crimes, but it makes a lot of sense to do so.

  2. Kelsey Avatar

    The reason speeding isn’t more strictly enforced is because it takes away resources from an already over burdened system. The province (well no, the separate municipalities..) would have us believe that the number of police on shift at a given time is considerable, when in fact most of the time it ‘just barely enough’ and many times
    Startlingly below ‘enough’. They COULD enforce the speeding (and they do as often as they are able) but in the grand scheme of crime it would be ludicrous to have police stopping speeders for 5km over, and let drug lords and domestic abusers off the hook. I agree, there should be more enforcement, most police officers I know wish there was more resources for enforcement, but the municipality/province think that staffing BELOW minimums ( the minimum number of officers deemed to be ‘safe and effective” ) is acceptable. Frankly, I’d rather my police officer husband ticket speeders than deal with some of the unimaginable stuff her deals with!!

  3. Stacey Avatar

    I was thinking more of society’s acceptance of the carnage related to speed than I was the actual policing of the speeders. You have to admit, people would be outraged if there was any enforcement of the speed limit, even to something like allowing ten over .

  4. Pierre Avatar

    Terrorism, Which kills far less people then car crashes due to speed, is still the top news item. car crashes have become an acceptable risk in our society!! Just saying

  5. Stacey Avatar

    Agreed. It is curious. Mind you, look at the damage done by guns in the USA and how they feel about their guns. We are a peculiar species.