Why does everyone drive above the posted speed limit?

[elvis15]

HOV lane is not "any lane". It has specific requirements, it is not like every other lane.

Just because there are a number of similar rules in driving in the HOV lane as single occupancy freeway lanes, does not mean they meet the exact same criteria.

If they did, there would not be reason to distinguish them in the Motor Vehicle Act:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_05#section152

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/26_58_13#part_division42

You've again linked to the definition of multiple occupancy in the laws, which is nice, but that is the definition of an HOV lane - multiple occupancy - and nothing else.

The second link is or heavy vehicle diesel emissions inspections, so not sure what that has to do with anything.

EDIT: I see the very bottom of that page has HOV information, again which was posted earlier in the thread. Again, that just defines multiple occupancy vehicles and who is allowed to use that lane. It says nothing that they are exempt from the other laws.

[Mr. Ambien]

That defines the multiple occupancy criteria, but does nothing to exclude it's use as a passing lane so long as you've already met that occupancy criteria. I have no onus to prove it legally when there's no law you've shown me that says the HOV lane is exempt from the other laws that govern driving.

In your scenario, if only two cars are on the road (no cars at all in other lanes) and both qualify for the HOV lane, if the first car is doing the speed limit and the second is catching up by going faster then the first car has no obligation to move to the right when safe and legal to do so to yield to faster traffic. That's simply not correct and has already been covered in one of the first links Heretic posted.

You may think that's case dismissed, but Heretic's very first post on page 3 has a link as well from that very same site. In that link it says the following (which I posted in reply to his post):

A reply in a thread post doesn't negate this prepared statement. An HOV lane is a left hand lane in most cases (certainly the cases we're talking about, we don't debate this for right hand side HOV lanes) and it's only exception using the laws (again that were already posted) that govern driving is the multiple occupancy criteria.

Nowhere else in the motor vehicle act does it give an exemption to the HOV lane to not be held to the other laws.

You've again linked to the definition of multiple occupancy in the laws, which is nice, but that is the definition of an HOV lane - multiple occupancy - and nothing else.

The second link is or heavy vehicle diesel emissions inspections, so not sure what that has to do with anything.

Scroll to the bottom of the page. It would be good to read more than a tiny section of a page and presume you've got it down pat.

And these amendments to the law distinguish the HOV from the other lanes.

Never mind the proof I provided, which already has soundly defeated your argument.

Just from a basic premise, if the HOV was the same as the other lanes, why would they bother distinguishing them?

It's very clear the HOV lane is not single-occupancy lanes.

The HOV could be moved from left to right, or left to middle, or left to in the sky, and it wouldn't matter. It's not the same as single-occupancy lanes, so your assertions that someone in the HOV must move to the right who is going the speed limit for someone who is going faster, is wrong. You need more proof than what I've provided, and you've never provided it, not even in your deferments to Heretic's links has it shown this. Where's the proof someone going the speed limit and not vacating the HOV lane for someone going faster is illegal? The HOV lane is clearly not a "passing lane". So why would your "must move right" apply in all circumstances the same as a single-occupancy lane would? Remove the mental block that has you seeing two different parts of the road as the same.

[elvis15]

I don't know, that drive smart bc quote also said to merge right at the broken line if you're holding up traffic.

There's probably not going to be a law, and class won't be dismissed, on this because y'all have whittled it down to such a niche scenario that it doesn't warrant one. Common sense.

So do these lanes ever operate only at certain times?

Some do. The HOV lane on Hwy 1 running through the lower mainland is only in effect Mon-Fri and then only during the day until 7pm.

In the absence of a specific exemption no one should ever assume they don't have to follow the other laws. For instance, saying the HOV lane is exempt from the slower traffic keep right law (I'll add except when going slower than the speed limit for Ambien) could also mean it's exempt from other laws like speeding or signalling because they aren't specifically stated in the motor vehicle act.

He said if you're going slower than the speed limit and holding up traffic.

Of course, that's not been the argument at all.

Moving to the right when going under the speed limit is one of the similarities between HOV and single-occupancy that makes sense.

Likewise, it's worth considering that very very few people who go in the HOV do so while going under the speed limit.

So in the real world, the complaint tends to come from people who want to go faster than the speed limit, and think, incorrectly, the HOV is a fast lane, when it isn't. I consider this notion, like from elvis, to be of a one-tracked mind, that so religiously thinks of the "left" as passing lanes, he ignores the clear distinction made for the HOV lane, distinctions made clear in laws, distinctions made clear on the road, that it is not the same.

I've never said the HOV lane is strictly a high speed lane for people who want to go faster than the speed limit. Please see my other posts as proof of that. You're ignoring that the only distinction is that the HOV lane - wherever it's located on the road - requires multiple occupancy (special vehicles and all that obviously intended for simplification).

[Mr. Ambien]

Some do. The HOV lane on Hwy 1 running through the lower mainland is only in effect Mon-Fri and then only during the day until 7pm.

In the absence of a specific exemption no one should ever assume they don't have to follow the other laws. For instance, saying the HOV lane is exempt from the slower traffic keep right law (I'll add except when going slower than the speed limit for Ambien) could also mean it's exempt from other laws like speeding or signalling because they aren't specifically stated in the motor vehicle act.

I've never said the HOV lane is strictly a high speed lane for people who want to go faster than the speed limit. Please see my other posts as proof of that. You're ignoring that the only distinction is that the HOV lane - wherever it's located on the road - requires multiple occupancy (special vehicles and all that obviously intended for simplification).

I never said you suggested it's strictly a high speed lane.

You can distinguish HOV lanes in the city as different from the other lanes, clearly you can't distinguish the HOV lane as different from the other lanes on the freeway.

A self-imposed impediment.

Just because there are similar laws, whether it be between HOV lanes, city lanes, or normal/single-occupant freeway lanes, does not mean they have all the same rules.

Clearly a distinguishing factor between HOV and single-occupancy freeway rules is, given rules of exclusivity of that lane to begin with, the "move to the right when going slow" only applies when going under the speed limit, and there's no proof one will be ticketed for going the speed limit and not moving to the right when lawfully in the HOV lane.

Likewise, with BC's zero tolerance to passing on the right, someone passing in the leftmost single-occupancy lane, won't be ticketed for passing someone in the HOV lane.

Got it?

Not the same.

It's not that tough, you're just making it so for yourself.

[The Bookie]

Maybe it would be easier if speeding was eliminated from the conversation altogether? From a legal standpoint, the speed limit is the word on the street out there, there won't be any laws to cite saying it's ok to go beyond it excepting emergency vehicles. If you guys really want to get to the bottom of the HOV rules, it might be best to assume everyone is traveling within the law.

[elvis15]

...

Just from a basic premise, if the HOV was the same as the other lanes, why would they bother distinguishing them?

It's very clear the HOV lane is not single-occupancy lanes.

The HOV could be moved from left to right, or left to middle, or left to in the sky, and it wouldn't matter. It's not the same as single-occupancy lanes, so your assertions that someone in the HOV must move to the right who is going the speed limit for someone who is going faster, is wrong. You need more proof than what I've provided, and you've never provided it, not even in your deferments to Heretic's links has it shown this. Where's the proof someone going the speed limit and not vacating the HOV lane for someone going faster is illegal? The HOV lane is clearly not a "passing lane". So why would your "must move right" apply in all circumstances the same as a single-occupancy lane would? Remove the mental block that has you seeing two different parts of the road as the same.

Why would they bother distinguishing them? Because they can't just say High Occupancy Vehicle and expect people to understand what that means and the special distinctions that are a part of that (like a bus which may have no one on it but the driver, or a motorcycle which could only have one person riding it).

No one is debating the HOV lane is not a single occupancy lane, it's defined in every link you're trying to throw at us. No one is debating the HOV lane could be in different areas of the roadway and not just the left hand side. What we are debating is that when the HOV lane is on the left hand side and in effect for multiple occupancy vehicles that the other laws of the motor vehicle act apply unless specifically exempted.

What are you doing in a left hand HOV lane during traffic congestion if not passing other vehicles? There is no other reason to be over there at times when there isn't congestion as you would have had to merge through other lanes of traffic, which is unnecessary and could easily put you at fault for contravening the slower traffic keep right law to begin with.

[elvis15]

I never said you suggested it's strictly a high speed lane.

...

Then what does this mean?

So in the real world, the complaint tends to come from people who want to go faster than the speed limit, and think, incorrectly, the HOV is a fast lane, when it isn't. I consider this notion, like from elvis, to be of a one-tracked mind, that so religiously thinks of the "left" as passing lanes, he ignores the clear distinction made for the HOV lane, distinctions made clear in laws, distinctions made clear on the road, that it is not the same.

That sure sounds like you're saying I carry the notion that the HOV lane is the fast lane. If I'm wrong then perhaps the way you've worded it isn't clear. It's besides the point in any event as speeding and speed limits have nothing special to do with HOV lanes.

...

You can distinguish HOV lanes in the city as different from the other lanes, clearly you can't distinguish the HOV lane as different from the other lanes on the freeway.

A self-imposed impediment.

Just because there are similar laws, whether it be between HOV lanes, city lanes, or normal/single-occupant freeway lanes, does not mean they have all the same rules.

Clearly a distinguishing factor between HOV and single-occupancy freeway rules is, given rules of exclusivity of that lane to begin with, the "move to the right when going slow" only applies when going under the speed limit, and there's no proof one will be ticketed for going the speed limit and not moving to the right when lawfully in the HOV lane.

Likewise, with BC's zero tolerance to passing on the right, someone passing in the leftmost single-occupancy lane, won't be ticketed for passing someone in the HOV lane.

Got it?

Not the same.

It's not that tough, you're just making it so for yourself.

I never said anything that HOV lanes in general, whether they be city of freeway are distinct from one another. And just because a lane has a different name (in this case HOV) doesn't mean it's exempt from the laws that are applicable to other lanes.

In all the information you've provided, nowhere does it say in the motor vehicle act that the slower traffic keep right law (or any other law applicable to other lanes on the same road) only applies when going under the speed limit. You've given me one forum post that says that when other articles from the same site contradict that. Show me in the motor vehicle act that the HOV lane has those exemptions (please, no more links to the definition that an HOV lane requires multiple occupancy) and we can talk.

And why would someone who doesn't qualify for the HOV lane (or someone who does but chooses not to use it) be ticketed for passing someone in any other lane whether it's on the left or not? That's just an absurd statement that does nothing to prove your point.

Maybe it would be easier if speeding was eliminated from the conversation altogether? From a legal standpoint, the speed limit is the word on the street out there, there won't be any laws to cite saying it's ok to go beyond it excepting emergency vehicles. If you guys really want to get to the bottom of the HOV rules, it might be best to assume everyone is traveling within the law.

I've been saying that from the start. Speeding and speed limits in fact have nothing to do with what laws apply to the HOV lanes apart from how they apply to any regular lane on the same road.

But I've got to go to bed, driving to Penticton tomorrow to watch the Young Stars and I won't be back nearly as often as usual on CDC to spend time debating this over an over when no one can provide proof the HOV lanes are exempt in any way from the other laws in the motor vehicle act of BC apart from having the distinction of being solely for multiple occupancy vehicles.

[Mr. Ambien]

Why would they bother distinguishing them? Because they can't just say High Occupancy Vehicle and expect people to understand what that means and the special distinctions that are a part of that (like a bus which may have no one on it but the driver, or a motorcycle which could only have one person riding it).

No one is debating the HOV lane is not a single occupancy lane, it's defined in every link you're trying to throw at us. No one is debating the HOV lane could be in different areas of the roadway and not just the left hand side. What we are debating is that when the HOV lane is on the left hand side and in effect for multiple occupancy vehicles that the other laws of the motor vehicle act apply unless specifically exempted.

What are you doing in a left hand HOV lane during traffic congestion if not passing other vehicles? There is no other reason to be over there at times when there isn't congestion as you would have had to merge through other lanes of traffic, which is unnecessary and could easily put you at fault for contravening the slower traffic keep right law to begin with.

The purpose of the HOV isn't inherently to pass other traffic. It's been to benefit people who carpool, reduce emissions/other types of pollution and overall congestion.

The side the HOV lane is on, is irrelevant. In fact, Canada and the US have been criticized for the HOV lane being on the left to begin with. Each HOV lane has special rules, which you clearly acknowledge, yet want to apply typical single-occupancy lane rules blindly to HOV lanes when it clearly doesn't work that way.

Maybe it would be easier if speeding was eliminated from the conversation altogether? From a legal standpoint, the speed limit is the word on the street out there, there won't be any laws to cite saying it's ok to go beyond it excepting emergency vehicles. If you guys really want to get to the bottom of the HOV rules, it might be best to assume everyone is traveling within the law.

The speeding thing was a point made from the get-go.

It's very common people who get into the HOV lane believe it's a fast lane, and thus people MUST move over if they are going the speed limit.

It's worth discussing because it happens very, very often.

People in the HOV lanes on the freeway who are legally in the lane do not have to move over for other cars in the HOV. If the person in the HOV lane behind a car going the speed limit has an issue with the person in front of them going the speed limit, their solution is to vacate the HOV lane and go around.

This is on top of the fact that the person in the HOV lane may not be able to logically move over. So it makes zero sense to force such rules upon people in the HOV lane.

Common sense + proof I've provided should be sufficient for most here.

[elvis15]

The purpose of the HOV isn't inherently to pass other traffic. It's been to benefit people who carpool, reduce emissions/other types of pollution and overall congestion.

The side the HOV lane is on, is irrelevant. In fact, Canada and the US have been criticized for the HOV lane being on the left to begin with. Each HOV lane has special rules, which you clearly acknowledge, yet want to apply typical single-occupancy lane rules blindly to HOV lanes when it clearly doesn't work that way.

But it is, since what else are you doing in that lane when traffic is congested (see the times the HOV is active on Hwy 1 for evidence of that) but passing people stuck in the lanes to the right?

And the HOV doesn't have special rules, it has a clear distinction about who can use it. There are no other laws that state it has special treatment when it comes to things like speed, signalling, etc.

...

The speeding thing was a point made from the get-go.

It's very common people who get into the HOV lane believe it's a fast lane, and thus people MUST move over if they are going the speed limit.

It's worth discussing because it happens very, very often.

People in the HOV lanes on the freeway who are legally in the lane do not have to move over for other cars in the HOV. If the person in the HOV lane behind a car going the speed limit has an issue with the person in front of them going the speed limit, their solution is to vacate the HOV lane and go around.

This is on top of the fact that the person in the HOV lane may not be able to logically move over. So it makes zero sense to force such rules upon people in the HOV lane.

Common sense + proof I've provided should be sufficient for most here.

To be clear, I'm not saying speeding, tailgating, etc. aren't worth discussing, just that they have nothing to do with the debate we were having with Heretic, which you jumped into. The people on my side of the fence certainly haven't been making a point to include speeding either.

I actually agree with the way you've worded the bolded statement though. Where we disagree is what we think is legal for the HOV lane.

And common sense should make it clear the solution isn't for the faster car to go around by merging into the next lane to the right, pass, then merge back over. Common sense would state the car going slower (regardless of their speed's relation to the speed limit) should merge one lane to the right when it's safe and legal to do so and then they can choose to merge back or not once the other car has passed if it's necessary, not forcing the car being impeded to do so.

You're version hasn't been sufficient for most here, least of all the civil engineer who is considered an expert witness if he were to be called to testify in a court of law to whether or not the HOV lane is still held to the same laws as other lanes on the same road.

But bed for real this time!

[Mr. Ambien]

But it is, since what else are you doing in that lane when traffic is congested (see the times the HOV is active on Hwy 1 for evidence of that) but passing people stuck in the lanes to the right?

And the HOV doesn't have special rules, it has a clear distinction about who can use it. There are no other laws that state it has special treatment when it comes to things like speed, signalling, etc.

To be clear, I'm not saying speeding, tailgating, etc. aren't worth discussing, just that they have nothing to do with the debate we were having with Heretic, which you jumped into.

I actually agree with the way you've worded the bolded statement. Where we disagree is what we think is legal for the HOV lane.

And common sense should make it clear the solution isn't for the faster car to go around by merging into the next lane to the right, pass, then merge back over. Common sense would state the car going slower (regardless of their speed's relation to the speed limit) should merge one lane to the right when it's safe and legal to do so and then they can choose to merge back or not once the other car has passed if it's necessary, not forcing the car being impeded to do so.

You're version hasn't been sufficient for most here, least of all the civil engineer who is considered an expert witness if he were to be called to testify in a court of law to whether or not the HOV lane is still held to the same laws as other lanes on the same road.

It's clearly not held to the same standards, and a civil engineer, or self-proclaimed omniscient person, would be held to the same standards to prove their claims as anyone else.

- You cannot move from lane to lane whenever.. must move when appropriate markings are in place.

- Specific signs that redefine how many people are permissible for HOV lane, and what vehicles/tags are permitted

Your attempts to blend the two very different type of lanes together is valiant, but not sufficient.

If a car is entitled to be in that lane, they are not entitled to move while driving at the speed limit. The lanes are not the same, and changing lanes in and out of an HOV lane has a much higher chance of an accident than changing between the other lanes.

It is established that being in the HOV lane means you are at the behest of traffic in front of you, and there is no guarantee you "pass" other traffic.. an HOV lane is not a guarantee of such anyways.

Every time you mention speed, which you did even in your attempts to make it seem like it's not the issue, you prove it is about speed, and the belief that HOV is part of the leftmost=passing lane view.

[elvis15]

It's clearly not held to the same standards, and a civil engineer, or self-proclaimed omniscient person, would be held to the same standards to prove their claims as anyone else.

- You cannot move from lane to lane whenever.. must move when appropriate markings are in place.

- Specific signs that redefine how many people are permissible for HOV lane, and what vehicles/tags are permitted

Your attempts to blend the two very different type of lanes together is valiant, but not sufficient.

No one is disputing that, but that's because the motor vehicle act defines both multiple occupancy and behaviour according to lines on a road or highway (white or yellow, solid, double, dotted any combination). I'm not sure why you keep bringing up things we aren't debating.

If a car is entitled to be in that lane, they are not entitled to move while driving at the speed limit. The lanes are not the same, and changing lanes in and out of an HOV lane has a much higher chance of an accident than changing between the other lanes.

It is established that being in the HOV lane means you are at the behest of traffic in front of you, and there is no guarantee you "pass" other traffic.. an HOV lane is not a guarantee of such anyways.

Every time you mention speed, which you did even in your attempts to make it seem like it's not the issue, you prove it is about speed, and the belief that HOV is part of the leftmost=passing lane view.

We're going in circles, as you still haven't shown me anything that proves that's the case. Again, you can keep saying stuff but it doesn't make it true.

And why does changing lanes in and out of an HOV have a much higher chance of an accident than the same thing in other lanes? Even then, wouldn't the act of changing lanes multiple times to even get over to the left side (including merging into the HOV lane!) have much more risk in total than just staying in the right hand lane? (Hint, I've talked about this before in response to the HOV being the safest lane).

"It is established" - where? When? Why does this even matter what's happening in front of you when we're talking about what's happening behind you? I guess the person behind you is at your behest, but then I'd hope if there was no further 'behesting' in front of you that you'd merge right when it was safe and legal to do so as slower traffic. That certainly seems to not be a guarantee when you're in the HOV lane though.

Speed does not equal speeding or speed limits. Speeding and speed limits are a part of speed, going too slow is also a speed, as is technically being stopped. Whatever speed you're going at when you're passing someone, you're still passing them.

[Mr. Ambien]

No one is disputing that, but that's because the motor vehicle act defines both multiple occupancy and behaviour according to lines on a road or highway (white or yellow, solid, double, dotted any combination). I'm not sure why you keep bringing up things we aren't debating.

We're going in circles, as you still haven't shown me anything that proves that's the case. Again, you can keep saying stuff but it doesn't make it true.

And why does changing lanes in and out of an HOV have a much higher chance of an accident than the same thing in other lanes? Even then, wouldn't the act of changing lanes multiple times to even get over to the left side (including merging into the HOV lane!) have much more risk in total than just staying in the right hand lane? (Hint, I've talked about this before in response to the HOV being the safest lane).

"It is established" - where? When? Why does this even matter what's happening in front of you when we're talking about what's happening behind you? I guess the person behind you is at your behest, but then I'd hope if there was no further 'behesting' in front of you that you'd merge right when it was safe and legal to do so as slower traffic. That certainly seems to not be a guarantee when you're in the HOV lane though.

Speed does not equal speeding or speed limits. Speeding and speed limits are a part of speed, going too slow is also a speed, as is technically being stopped. Whatever speed you're going at when you're passing someone, you're still passing them.

First off, we need to address your dismissing proof while providing none. Compare the proof provided. You = 0. Me = showing a BC employee who also worked in traffic enforcement.

Here they are again, showing the person speeding in the HOV lane is at fault, not the person refusing to move out of the way:

http://drivesmartbc.ca/rules-road/drivers/using-hov-lane

Taking into account the discussion on solid lines above, your speed law abiding driver is no doubt being seriously tailgated (followed too closely) by the want to be speeder. When I worked traffic enforcement my action of choice in this situation was to ticket the tailgater. In my view, they are the problem here.

It means one does not have to move out of the HOV lane when going the speed limit.

And in the regular occurrence of CarA riding CarB's ass in the HOV lane because they want to pass, CarA is the one that must go around, CarB is not required to move to the right. In every case where I've seen by a credible source that even mentions exiting the HOV, it either does due to: Being slower than posted speed limits, or because it's a nice thing to do / avoid a jerk, the latter of which is not required by law.. and the former is not even being contested.

The proof against your statements is already overwhelming. If you're going to dismiss things, provide something to the contrary that would strengthen your case. You have not done this at all, whatsoever. That's how you lose a debate.

[kazin!]

I hate driving in the city. So...so much.

[aGENT]

First off, we need to address your dismissing proof while providing none. Compare the proof provided. You = 0. Me = showing a BC employee who also worked in traffic enforcement.

Here they are again, showing the person speeding in the HOV lane is at fault, not the person refusing to move out of the way:

http://drivesmartbc.ca/rules-road/drivers/using-hov-lane

It means one does not have to move out of the HOV lane when going the speed limit.

And in the regular occurrence of CarA riding CarB's ass in the HOV lane because they want to pass, CarA is the one that must go around, CarB is not required to move to the right. In every case where I've seen by a credible source that even mentions exiting the HOV, it either does due to: Being slower than posted speed limits, or because it's a nice thing to do / avoid a jerk, the latter of which is not required by law.. and the former is not even being contested.

The proof against your statements is already overwhelming. If you're going to dismiss things, provide something to the contrary that would strengthen your case. You have not done this at all, whatsoever. That's how you lose a debate.

Technically they're both breaking the law. The officer simply exercised discretion as to which action they felt was "worse". Ideally he'd be able to pull them both over (clearly a challenge for one officer/car).

You still have posted no legal evidence that excludes HOV lanes from any other rules of the road, keep right or otherwise.

A right turn only lane is also defined as a "special" lane. Is it immune from other laws of the road? Do you still have to come to a complete stop in one is otherwise required? It is a special lane after all.

I'd also recommend you keep your anecdotal thoughts and musings on speeding out of the discussion. It has no bearing on the laws in question. I also didn't care for your putting word in my mouth and silly assumptions made on the previous page. It's highly poor form in a discussion.

[Mr. Ambien]

Technically they're both breaking the law. The officer simply exercised discretion as to which action they felt was "worse". Ideally he'd be able to pull them both over (clearly a challenge for one officer/car).

Conjecture.

You still have posted no legal evidence that excludes HOV lanes from any other rules of the road, keep right or otherwise.

Ignoring evidence posted.

A right turn only lane is also defined as a "special" lane. Is it immune from other laws of the road? Do you still have to come to a complete stop in one is otherwise required? It is a special lane after all.

Straw man. (I never asserted HOV lanes are not subject to other rules of the road, in fact, I said they are subject to most, but not all, given they aren't the same lanes)

I'd also recommend you keep your anecdotal thoughts and musings on speeding out of the discussion. It has no bearing on the laws in question. I also didn't care for your putting word in my mouth and silly assumptions made on the previous page. It's highly poor form in a discussion.

Mini modding, conjecture, dismissing proof already posted -- laws cited, scenarios shown by a BC government employee who was also an officer -- as anecdotal thoughts.

Quoted arguments in a nutshell. Zero quality, not worth any more time. Thanks for the debate.

[inane]

wetcoaster v2.0 here

[aGENT]

wetcoaster v2.0 here

I was thinking more pot/kettle.

[Heretic]

I hate driving in the city. So...so much.

One of the reasons I moved to the country.

[Buddhas Hand]

WE have you fooled ! He heeee !

Tony Abott - Aussie Pm stated yesterday .... " we have no intelligence".

[BigUncle16]

My 0.02 on the OP:

Because speed limits in BC are ridiculous.

If anyone's driven in the States, it's hard to disagree that they have a MUCH better system and culture of roads and driving. Sensible speed limits, driving habits that encourage efficient flow of traffic for everyone, much better and bigger signage, and so on. Every time I cross the border to come back in to Canada from a trip to the States I can't help but to sigh of disappointment. They have a much better thing going on down south of the border.