Comments on: Why there’s no such thing as a ‘dangerous’ highway

By: JD M

JD M — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:49:01 +0000

Having a kind heart has nothing to do with driving conditions and safety. He is absolutely correct in that these incidents were caused by poor driving. And pandering to the family of the victims-of-their-own-error will do nothing to improve the situation at hand.

By: Dave H

Dave H — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:32:14 +0000

There are so many ways that an article about road design could have been written. Obviously, the jurisprudence cited by one of the other readers must be incorrect. An automotive journalist must surely know more about the lack of negligence in design than the learned jurist that actually heard the evidence.

I’m sure the loved ones of those that lost their lives in the specific incidences you’ve cited feel much better now. Congratulations Ian. What a kind soul you must have.

By: rob

rob — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:24:35 +0000

hwy 69. dangerous by design. most roads have a shoulder/ditch that will cushion any avoidance of animals,vehicles,black ice,etc. hwy 69 offers immovable rock cuts that offer no cushion. realignment and widening of this road was long overdue . it appears that your rural knowledge is limited. canal road,as its name implies follows the canal. again the ditch is a canal deep enough to submerge most any vehicle. over the years many have done so. the incident mentioned was only one of them. there are other roads and highways which have not kept up with the demands of increased use. many rural areas allow farm equipment to use the roads. fifty years ago a tractor and plow/disc/harrow would only take one lane. now, a tractor with dual wheels with most any size tilling implement takes both lanes and the shoulder. trucks pull 50+ foot trailers ,twice that of years gone bye. again,increase use but roads did not. i could go on but point is made.

By: Dennis Buchanan

Dennis Buchanan — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:07:50 +0000

While I take your point that it is incumbent upon the driver to drive with appropriate caution for the road conditions, with reference to the design of the highway, the friction coefficient, visibility, etc., it’s still completely wrong to say that there’s no such thing as a dangerous highway.

Particularly for a driver unfamiliar with a stretch of road, the possibility of unseen hazards isn’t always obvious. Sight-deficient hills are a prime example of this – see the case of Deering v. Scogug.

If I’m driving the speed limit in clear and dry conditions, and come around a blind corner and don’t have time to respond to a hazard…well, maybe I should have anticipated the blind corner, but clearly the road design and speed limit were major contributors to the resulting collision.

By: northerner

northerner — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:49:16 +0000

Guess you never lived in Northern Ontario. Badly engineered roads … curves too tight, the pitch of the road too steep; the posted speed limit far too high; improper drainage leading to fogging problems. Gravity, centrifugal forces — drivers depend on engineers to do their job properly. Engineers make mistakes and when drivers can finally make someone listen that lives are as important as engineer’s egos … well, you get a redesign and a rebuild … and wasted money. Dangerous highways/poor engineers. Think about it.

By: AstroGirl

AstroGirl — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:58:40 +0000

So you think, for example, that it’s inherently safe to have 3 on-ramps, 1 off-ramp, and a collectors-to-express transfer in a 1km stretch of highway? Just out of curiosity (like, say, the EB 401 between Meadowvale & the Rouge River)… that that’s not idiocy equally contributory to the number of crashes/fatalities as one bad driver? The civil engineers who designed these highways decades ago didn’t design them with a mind to the volumes of traffic OR forward movement in handling & top-speeds of vehicles that exist today. OF COURSE THE ROADS NEED TO BE UPDATED!

By: beerchugger

beerchugger — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:29:07 +0000

Good article Ian, these so-called bad highways do not jump out and bite the cars and trucks that get involved in accidents. It is the drivers that do not pay attention or have the experience that get into trouble and many times they or others pay dearly for it. Winter is coming and unfortunately the gene pool will be cleansed some more regardless of who is the cause.

By: Jon R

Jon R — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:19:00 +0000

Ah the thoughts of an idealist…factually accurate but unfortunately irrelevant. Your suggestion that $20 million be spent better driver training rather than road construction seem valid, but would $20 million give us better drivers? What about visitors who would not have benefitted from that money, clearly they will still be involved in crashes. Is it possible to achieve the same reduction in collisions over the same period using driver training rather than road improvement? Without answers to these questions, we can’t determine if your approach is better or not. It may be true that if all drivers applied more attention they would be involved in fewer accidents and fewer people would die on our roads, but what actions will achieve that result. Governments can’t spend money in the abstract and hope for results. If you have $20 million and one type of change will result in a predictable improvement and the other may result in an unknown improvement you’re likely better off with the know element.

By: Darian

Darian — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:00:21 +0000

140,000 residents of PEI (2011)

$90,000 of fencing… . really, how many protesters are there…

By: james

james — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:49:11 +0000

I have to agree with the article, after driving in many parts of the world with a wide variety of road situations North American roads are among the easiest to travel on, and perhaps that is part of the problem. Drivers seem to feel they can lose focus and just cruise along, not a good strategy.

People simply need to be more careful.